Principal Investigators
C. Marks
J. Koza-Reinders
C. Hoying
N. Craft
Prepared for
LENOWISCO Planning District Commission
372 Technology Trail Lane, Suite 101
Duffield, Virginia 24244
SMR Site Feasibility Study for LENOWISCO
R-203-2301-001-01
Revision 0
April 2023
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
ii
RECORD OF REVISIONS
Rev.
Description
Prepared by
Date
Checked by
Date
Reviewed by
Date
Approved by
Date
0 Original Issue
4/28/2023
C. Hoying
Senior Engineer
4/28/2023
J. Koza-Reinders
Senior Engineer
4/28/2023
J. Koza-Reinders
Senior Engineer
4/28/2023
C. Marks
Principal
Engineer
The last revision number to reflect any changes for each section of the report is shown in the
Table of Contents. The last revision numbers to reflect any changes for tables and figures are
shown in the List of Tables and the List of Figures. Changes made in the latest revision, except
for Rev. 0 and revisions which change the report in its entirety, are indicated by a double line in
the right hand margin as shown here.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
iii
CONTENTS
Page
Last Rev.
Mod.
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Potential Nuclear Technologies Considered ...................................................... 2-1
2.2 Potential Site Evaluations .................................................................................. 2-2
2.3 Governmental Incentives for Nuclear ................................................................. 2-3
2.4 Use of Nuclear Power for Dedicated New Facilities ........................................... 2-4
2.5 Use of Nuclear Power for Sale to the Grid ......................................................... 2-4
2.6 Economic Effects of Nuclear Infrastructure ........................................................ 2-5
3 POTENTIAL NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED ........................................................... 3-1
3.1 Types of Reactors.............................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Reactor Sizes .................................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 Large Reactors (600-1500 MWe) ........................................................ 3-2
3.2.2 Medium Sized Reactors (300-600 MWe)............................................. 3-3
3.2.3 Small Modular Reactors (<300 MWe) ................................................. 3-3
3.2.4 Microreactors (1-10 MWe) ................................................................... 3-3
3.2.5 Cooling Water Requirements .............................................................. 3-4
3.3 Commercial Vendors ......................................................................................... 3-5
3.3.1 Large SMR Scale ................................................................................ 3-9
3.3.2 Medium SMR Scale ............................................................................. 3-9
3.3.3 Micro SMR Scale ............................................................................... 3-10
3.4 Implications of Nuclear Technology Options for LENOWISCO ........................ 3-11
4 POTENTIAL SITE EVALUATIONS ......................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Example Potential Sites ..................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.1 Potential LENOWISCO Sites ............................................................... 4-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
iv
4.1.1.1 Limestone ........................................................................ 4-2
4.1.1.2 Lee County ...................................................................... 4-4
4.1.1.3 Bullit ................................................................................. 4-6
4.1.1.4 Red Onion ....................................................................... 4-8
4.1.1.5 Mineral Gap ................................................................... 4-10
4.1.1.6 VCHEC Virginia City ...................................................... 4-12
4.1.1.7 Project Intersection ........................................................ 4-14
4.1.2 Comparison Sites .............................................................................. 4-15
4.2 Regulatory Considerations .............................................................................. 4-16
4.2.1 Identification of the Region of Interest ............................................... 4-16
4.2.2 Identification of Candidate Areas ....................................................... 4-17
4.2.3 Applicable Regulations ...................................................................... 4-17
4.2.4 Regulation Review ............................................................................ 4-18
4.2.4.1 Health and Safety Criteria ............................................. 4-18
4.2.4.1.1 Geology/Seismology ............................... 4-19
4.2.4.1.2 Cooling System Requirements ............... 4-19
4.2.4.1.3 Flooding .................................................. 4-20
4.2.4.1.4 Local Hazardous Land Uses ................... 4-21
4.2.4.1.5 Extreme Weather Conditions .................. 4-21
4.2.4.1.6 Population Density .................................. 4-21
4.2.4.1.7 Emergency Planning .............................. 4-22
4.2.4.1.8 Atmospheric Dispersion .......................... 4-22
4.2.4.1.9 Groundwater Requirements .................... 4-23
4.2.4.1.10 Radionuclide Pathways .......................... 4-23
4.2.4.1.11 Security .................................................. 4-24
4.2.4.2 Ecological Criteria .......................................................... 4-24
4.2.4.2.1 Aquatic Effects of Construction and Operation
............................................................... 4-25
4.2.4.2.2 Terrestrial Effects of Construction and
Operation ................................................ 4-26
4.2.4.3 Socioeconomic Criteria .................................................. 4-27
4.3 Community Involvement .................................................................................. 4-28
4.4 Factors Affecting Siting .................................................................................... 4-29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
v
4.4.1 Socioeconomic Factors ..................................................................... 4-30
4.4.1.1 Nuclear Restrictions ...................................................... 4-30
4.4.1.2 Energy Prices ................................................................ 4-30
4.4.1.3 Net Electricity Imports .................................................... 4-31
4.4.1.4 Nuclear Sentiment ......................................................... 4-31
4.4.1.5 Nuclear Inclusive Policy ................................................. 4-31
4.4.1.6 Market Regulation ......................................................... 4-32
4.4.1.7 Construction Labor Rate ................................................ 4-32
4.4.2 Proximity Factors ............................................................................... 4-32
4.4.2.1 Population ..................................................................... 4-33
4.4.2.2 Operating Nuclear Facilities........................................... 4-33
4.4.2.3 Nuclear Research and Development ............................. 4-33
4.4.2.4 Substations .................................................................... 4-33
4.4.2.5 Generator Retirement .................................................... 4-34
4.4.2.6 Transportation ............................................................... 4-34
4.4.2.7 Streamflow .................................................................... 4-34
4.4.3 Safety Factors ................................................................................... 4-34
4.4.3.1 Social Vulnerability Index .............................................. 4-35
4.4.3.2 Protected Lands ............................................................ 4-35
4.4.3.3 Hazardous Facilities ...................................................... 4-35
4.4.3.4 Fault Lines ..................................................................... 4-36
4.4.3.5 Landslide Hazard ........................................................... 4-36
4.4.3.6 Safe Shutdown Earthquake ........................................... 4-36
4.4.3.7 100-Year Flood .............................................................. 4-36
4.4.3.8 Open Waters and Wetlands .......................................... 4-37
4.4.3.9 Slope ............................................................................. 4-37
4.5 Results from STAND ....................................................................................... 4-37
4.5.1 Baseline Analysis .............................................................................. 4-40
4.5.2 Microreactor Analysis ........................................................................ 4-42
4.5.3 300 MWe SMR Analysis .................................................................... 4-43
4.6 LENOWISCO Differentiators............................................................................ 4-45
5 GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR NUCLEAR .......................................................................... 5-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
vi
5.1 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ............................................................. 5-1
5.2 Inflation Reduction Act ....................................................................................... 5-2
5.3 Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization Program ................................. 5-3
5.4 Opportunity Zones ............................................................................................. 5-3
5.5 Tobacco Region Opportunity Fund .................................................................... 5-4
5.6 Commonwealth Opportunity Fund ..................................................................... 5-4
5.7 LENOWISCO Differentiators.............................................................................. 5-5
6 USE OF NUCLEAR POWER FOR DEDICATED NEW FACILITIES ................................................ 6-1
6.1 Energy Production and Utilization ...................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Data Centers ..................................................................................................... 6-3
6.3 Hydrogen Generation ........................................................................................ 6-4
6.4 Industrial Park .................................................................................................... 6-5
6.5 LENOWISCO Differentiators.............................................................................. 6-6
7 USE OF NUCLEAR POWER FOR SALE TO THE GRID ............................................................. 7-1
7.1 PJM Summary ................................................................................................... 7-2
7.2 Grid Connection Requirements .......................................................................... 7-3
7.3 Utility Comments................................................................................................ 7-4
7.3.1 AEP ..................................................................................................... 7-5
7.3.2 Dominion Energy ................................................................................. 7-5
7.4 Coal to Nuclear .................................................................................................. 7-6
7.4.1 Transmission, Switchyards, and Office Buildings ................................ 7-7
7.4.2 Ultimate Heat Sink Infrastructure ......................................................... 7-7
7.4.3 Steam Cycle Components ................................................................... 7-7
7.4.4 C2N Study Results .............................................................................. 7-8
7.4.5 Shuttered Power Plants ....................................................................... 7-8
7.5 LENOWISCO Differentiators.............................................................................. 7-8
8 ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................... 8-1
8.1 Local Spending during Construction .................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Total Project Cost .............................................................................................. 8-1
8.3 Direct Jobs ......................................................................................................... 8-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
vii
8.4 Indirect and Induced Jobs .................................................................................. 8-6
8.5 Tax Revenues ................................................................................................... 8-7
9 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 9-1
A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ........................................................ A-1
0
0
0
0
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Last Rev.
Mod.
Table 3-1 Summary of Commercial Vendors .................................................................... 3-7
Table 6-1 2021 Average Annual Capacity Factors [68] ..................................................... 6-3
Table 6-2 Relative Size of Data Centers ........................................................................... 6-4
Table 8-1 Expected Number of Employees from Each Plant Design ................................ 8-6
0
0
0
0
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Last Rev.
Mod.
Figure 4-1 Limestone Google Maps Pin ............................................................................. 4-3
Figure 4-2 Limestone Wetlands Map ................................................................................. 4-3
Figure 4-3 Limestone Site Expected Acreage .................................................................... 4-4
Figure 4-4 Lee County Google Maps Pin ........................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4-5 Lee County Wetlands Map ................................................................................ 4-5
Figure 4-6 Lee County Site Expected Acreage .................................................................. 4-6
Figure 4-7 Bullit Google Maps Pin ...................................................................................... 4-7
Figure 4-8 Bullit Wetlands Map .......................................................................................... 4-7
Figure 4-9 Bullit Expected Site Acreage ............................................................................. 4-8
Figure 4-10 Red Onion Google Maps Pin ............................................................................ 4-9
Figure 4-11 Red Onion Wetlands Map ................................................................................. 4-9
Figure 4-12 Red Onion Approximate Site Acreage ............................................................ 4-10
Figure 4-13 Mineral Gap Google Maps Pin ........................................................................ 4-11
Figure 4-14 Mineral Gap Wetlands Map ............................................................................ 4-11
Figure 4-15 Mineral Gap Expected Site Acreage ............................................................... 4-12
Figure 4-16 VCHEC Virginia City Google Maps Pin ........................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-17 VCHEC Virginia City Wetlands Map ............................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-18 Project Intersection Google Maps Pin ............................................................. 4-14
Figure 4-19 Project Intersection Wetlands Map ................................................................. 4-15
Figure 4-20 Map of the LENOWISCO ROI sites ................................................................ 4-40
Figure 4-21 The Contribution of Each Primary Objectives Score to the Comparison of the
Sites ................................................................................................................ 4-41
Figure 4-22 Attribute Relevance – Range Significance Matrix for Microreactor Analysis ... 4-42
Figure 4-23 The Contribution of Each Primary Objectives Score to the Comparison of the
Sites for Microreactors .................................................................................... 4-43
Figure 4-24 Attribute Relevance – Range Significance Matrix for Larger SMRs Analysis .. 4-44
Figure 4-25 The Contribution of Each Primary Objectives Score to the Comparison of the
Sites for Larger SMRs ..................................................................................... 4-45
Figure 5-1 Opportunity Zones (Grey Shaded Regions) in LENOWISCO [63] .................... 5-4
Figure 8-1 A Visualization of the Factors that Affect LCOE [82] .............................................. 8-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
xi
DEFINITIONS
Advanced Light Water Reactor: A reactor which uses light water for moderator and coolant
similar to the currently operating fleet of nuclear reactors, but also features advanced design
concepts which provide significant improvements such as: inherent (passive) safety features,
improved performance, load dispatching capabilities, or modular sizing to match load growth
projections.
Advanced Reactor: A reactor that significantly differs from currently operating light water
reactors due to utilizing different coolant or fuel. Advanced reactors may use non water coolants
such as inert gas, molten salt, or liquid metal. Advanced reactors may use non zirconium clad
uranium dioxide pellets for fuel such as liquid fuels dissolved in the coolant, or carbon coated
uranium TRI-structural ISOtropic (TRISO) particles.
Alternative Site: Those candidate sites that are compared to the proposed site to determine if
there is an obviously superior site.
Behind the Meter (BTM): An electrical generation or storage system which is on the load or
customer side of a utility service meter. A BTM system delivers energy to the load without using
transmission system or distribution facilities. Such a system may reduce costs associated with
transmission of electricity or allow for higher certainty in future power pricing.
Candidate Areas: One or more areas within the ROI that remain after unsuitable areas (e.g., due
to high population, lack of water, fault lines, distance to transmission lines) have been removed.
Candidate Sites: Those potential sites (at least four) that are within the ROI and that are
considered in the comparative evaluation of sites to be among the best that can reasonably be
found for the siting of a nuclear power plant.
Coolant: A substance circulated through a nuclear reactor to remove or transfer heat from the
fuel to the steam cycle. The most commonly used coolant in the United States is water. Other
coolants include heavy water, air, carbon dioxide, helium, liquid sodium, and a sodium-
potassium alloy.
Cooling Tower Drift: Drift the term for the carryover of liquid water within the evaporated water
stream of a cooling tower.
Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ): The region surrounding a reactor site where plans are in place
to protect the public in the event of a radiological release. Traditional large light water reactors
have a 10 mile EPZ where plans are in place to evacuate or shelter the public, as well as a 50
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
xii
mile EPZ where plans are in place to avoid or reduce the consumption of potentially
contaminated water or food.
Fast Neutron: A fast neutron is a neutron moving with greater kinetic energy than its
surroundings. When a neutron is produced during fission it is ejected from the nucleus at high
speed. The neutron is less likely to interact with a U-235 nucleus causing a subsequent fission
until it is slowed down to ambient thermal speeds.
LENOWISCO Region of Interest (ROI): The LENOWISCO ROI is defined within this report as
the LENOWISCO Planning District (comprised of Lee, Scott, and Wise counties and the
independent City of Norton) as well as neighboring Dickenson county. This geographic region of
Southwest Virginia is characterized by the availability of brownfield sites for development,
minewater for cooling, rail lines for shipping, and an interest in energy generation and data
center development.
Micro Grid: A micro grid is a group of generators and loads that perform as a single entity with
respect to the wider electrical grid. The micro grid may receive or transmit electricity from the
wider power grid during normal operations or isolate itself from the wider power grid during
disturbances such as power outages. An example microgrid might contain nuclear, wind, and
solar generators powering an industrial business park and data centers. A single metered
substation would connect the generators and loads to the wider power grid.
Moderator: A material used in the reactor which functions to slow down high-velocity neutrons
to enhance the likelihood of fission. Neutrons created in the fission process are born with high
velocities which make them unlikely to result in a fission with U-235 until they are slowed down
by the moderator. Reactors using ‘slow’ or ‘thermal’ neutrons to fission U-235 require a
moderator such as water, heavy water, or graphite. Reactors using ‘fast’ neutrons may not
require moderators in their designs.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): The NRC is an independent agency created by
Congress in 1974. This organization regulates commercial nuclear power plants and related
fields. The NRC conducts licensing, inspection and enforcement of its requirements.
Potential Sites: Those sites within the candidate areas that have been identified for preliminary
assessment in establishing candidate sites.
Proposed Site: The candidate site submitted to the NRC by the applicant as the proposed location
for a nuclear power plant.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
xiii
Region of Interest (ROI): The geographic area considered in searching for potential and
candidate sites.
Small Modular Reactor (SMR): An advanced reactor design which is defined by producing
300 MWe or less from each individual reactor. Depending on the commercial developer,
multiple reactors may be designed to be installed at a single site which will produce greater than
300 MWe. SMRs are envisioned to be manufactured and shipped to a site for assembly,
potentially lowering costs and delays which have been associated with the construction of the
current fleet of large light water reactors.
Siting Tool for Advanced Nuclear Development (STAND): The STAND tool is used to identify
the feasibility of siting new advanced nuclear reactor sites. The STAND tool was developed by
the National Reactor Innovation Center to incorporate data from multiple official sources in
order to compare the suitability of proposed reactor sites.
Thermal Neutron: A thermal neutron is a neutron which has been slowed down to a kinetic
energy equal to that of its surroundings. The slowing down process is caused by the neutron
repeatedly colliding with the moderator, with each collision reducing its speed. Thermal neutrons
are more likely to interact with U-235 nuclei to cause a fission reaction.
Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS): The ultimate heat sink absorbs the excess or waste heat generated by
the heat source (nuclear, coal, natural gas, etc.) during the electricity conversion process.
Approximately 33% of the heat generated by the heat source is converted to electricity and the
other 66% is rejected to the ultimate heat sink. The UHS may be a river, lake, ocean, or air. The
heat is transferred to the UHS via site specific cooling equipment such as condensers or cooling
towers.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
1-1
1 INTRODUCTION
Lee, Wise, and Scott counties along with the independent City of Norton are located in the
Southwest corner of the Commonwealth of Virginia and comprise the LENOWISCO Planning
District. The LENOWISCO Planning District is bordered by Kentucky to the Northwest and
Tennessee to the South. Southwest Virginia and the LENOWISCO region are in the midst of an
economic transition. Employment in coal mines throughout the region has been drastically
reduced over the past several decades leading to the need for new industries and enterprises.
Convincing a stagnant industry to relocate their facilities can be a monumental undertaking.
However, convincing an industry that is expanding to expand into in a new region can be as
simple as providing the right conditions for growth. The LENOWISCO Planning District and
neighboring Dickenson County, collectively referred to as the LENOWISCO Region of Interest
*
(ROI), are in a prime position to attract new industries with inexpensive brownfield sites, mine
water for cooling, existing right of way to transmissions infrastructure, and existing rail
infrastructure. Due to extensive mining operations in the area, LENOWISCO has the human
expertise and the infrastructure to handle large civil construction projects. There are few
environmental restrictions regarding the preservation of the existing environment because
prospective SMR sites that could be located on previously mined lands offer an opportunity for a
higher and better post-mine use. These factors make the LENOWISCO region stand out as a
location for new nuclear in ways that are not necessarily captured by STAND and other existing
siting tools. These resources could be used to grow two synergistic industries: data centers and
nuclear power generation.
Data centers are facilities which house the machinery of the internet, warehouses filled with
servers and computers. As consumers switch from cable to streaming, businesses switch from in
person to remote work, and increasing percentages of the world is digitized, the demand for data
centers will continue to grow. Data centers require large amounts of power for both server
operation and cooling. Any region which can offer competitive electricity pricing will attract
data centers by virtue of reducing the cost of doing business. The LENOWISCO ROI can also
*
A “region of interest” (ROI) is the geographic area which will be investigated. This definition is used throughout
the report and discussed in greater detail in Section 4.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
1-2
offer geothermal cooling solutions through the innovative use of mine water, which will
significantly reduce the electricity requirements of new data centers.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are a novel type of nuclear reactor that can be used to provide
carbon-free energy for industrial and residential consumers. These reactors are designed to be
manufactured on short time scales and installed with minimal onsite construction to provide
incremental, distributed generation capacity. In recent decades, growth in electricity demand has
been offset by increased efficiency by users resulting in little to no need for additions of large
generation projects. When large unmet electricity demand did exist, it was often met with new
natural gas generation facilities. The Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) will require 100% of
Virginia’s electricity to be powered by carbon-free sources by 2050. This ambitious plan will
require the retirement of many fossil generation units and construction of significant new
generation capacity. SMRs of all types and sizes will be necessary to provide new baseload
power to replace retiring generation.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has a rich history of support for nuclear technology. Surry
Nuclear Power Plant and North Anna Nuclear Generating Station are each home to two nuclear
reactors which combine to provide thousands of megawatts of electricity to the civilian power
grid. Meanwhile, Naval Station Norfolk provides the home port for many of the nuclear reactors
which power the United States Navy. Norfolk is the home port for six aircraft carriers which
were built in the shipyards of Newport News, each powered by two nuclear reactors. Norfolk is
also home port for nine nuclear powered submarines. BWX Technologies, Inc. located in
Lynchburg manufactures reactor cores for the U.S. Navy, has decades of industrial nuclear
experience, and is developing Project Pele, a Department of Defense (DoD) sponsored
microreactor. Framatome located in Lynchburg provides inspection and refurbishment of nuclear
reactor components and qualification of nuclear grade parts.
Historically, the nuclear power industry has been an engine for Virginia’s growth that has not
moved West of Lynchburg. However, the LENOWISCO ROI is an attractive location for
construction of SMRs. Brownfield sites which had previously been used for surface mining
represent a significant resource for development into nuclear power sites. Low regional
population density will lower the barriers to reactor siting. The mountainous region has minimal
wetlands which can be disrupted by construction. Existing rail lines can be used to affordably
transport construction materials to the region.
The construction of SMRs can lead to reliable and affordable electricity in the region, spurring
increased interest from data center developers. Increased demand for data centers can spur
additional SMR units, which are designed from the outset to support additional generation
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
1-3
modules. Maintaining continuity of continuous construction of new reactors will lower project
costs over time, resulting in lower electricity generation costs. This self-reinforcing cycle has the
potential to transform the LENOWISCO ROI into a leader in carbon free generation and data
center investment in Virginia.
This report describes the feasibility of siting Small Modular Reactors in the LENOWISCO ROI
as a first step in the energy transformation of the region.
• Section 2 provides an Executive Summary of the report.
• Section 3 provides an overview of the different SMR technologies and their readiness for
deployment.
• Section 4 provides a description of the requirements to site a nuclear power plant and
assesses the viability of various sites in the LENOWISCO ROI.
• Section 5 provides an overview of the various government incentives which are available
for SMR construction.
• Section 6 provides a review of the various industrial uses of nuclear power.
• Section 7 provides an overview of the requirements for the sale of electricity on the PJM
market.
• Section 8 provides an overview of the economic effects of nuclear power plant construction
and operation within the region.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
2-1
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The LENOWISCO Planning District and neighboring Dickenson County, collectively referred to
as the LENOWISCO ROI, has several unique features that make it an ideal site for one or more
small modular reactors (SMRs) or advanced reactors (ARs). Among them are ample brownfield
sites, low regional population density, significant land with low environmental regulatory
burden, nearby transmission lines, existing rail lines, and specifically, its supply of mine water
which is geothermally cooled to 51°F. These features also make the area an excellent location for
an industrial partner such as a data center.
More broadly, Virginia as a whole provides fertile ground for new nuclear projects. Dominion
Energy has operated the two units at North Anna Nuclear Generating Station and the two units at
Surry Nuclear Power Plant for fifty years. The state is also home to several universities with elite
engineering programs and is home to many consulting firms and manufacturing facilities with
decades of experiencing supporting the nuclear power industry. The utilities that service the state
of Virginia and LENOWISCO are enthusiastic for future nuclear projects. When contacted
regarding this project, the utilities expressed support for the development of nuclear projects in
LENOWISCO ROI.
This study was completed to determine the feasibility of constructing multiple SMRs in the
LENOWISCO ROI. This study has several key elements which are discussed in the following
subsections.
2.1 Potential Nuclear Technologies Considered
Section 3 of this report reviews the nuclear technologies available and being actively researched,
as well as the potential nuclear technologies considered for LENOWISCO ROI. The basics of
each design are explained for background because each, if brought to market, could be successful
in LENOWISCO.
As it relates to this study, the most important difference among the discussed designs is the
power output. The chosen design should provide an amount of electricity that matches what is
demanded by co-located and nearby customers. In general, larger reactors will output the most
power, but also take up more land and resources for operation. Many of the designs discussed in
this report are considered small modular reactors (SMRs). These plant designs are intended to
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
2-2
scale in size according to the needs of the region and the available space. Several SMR
developers are nearing demonstration stages of testing, and most are aiming to be commercially
available during the late 2020s. The designs highlighted in this report as potentially good fits for
LENOWISCO and commercially available within this decade are the following.
• GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 a BWR with 1-2 300 MWe modules.
• TerraPower Natrium a 345 MWe SFR.
• NuScale VOYGR 6 a PWR with up to 12 60 MWe modules.
• X-energy XE-100 a HTGR with 4 80 MWe modules.
• BWXT Project Pele a HTGR that produces 1-5 MWe.
• Ultrasafe Micro-Modular Reactor a HTGR with 2 5 MWe modules.
• Westinghouse eVinci a SFR that produces 5 MWe.
2.2 Potential Site Evaluations
In Section 4 of this report a review of the regulations involved with nuclear reactor siting was
performed. A community outreach survey was also conducted, with all respondents in agreement
that nuclear energy should be considered for electrical generation.
Eight locations in the LENOWISCO ROI were reviewed for their suitability with respect to
siting a proposed SMR or microreactor. The review was conducted using the Siting Tool for
Advanced Nuclear Development (STAND) which aggregates data from multiple governmental
sources and ranks the proposed sites with respect to socioeconomic, proximity, and safety
suitability. Five comparison sites outside of LENOWISCO that are being considered for future
nuclear projects were also included. The STAND tool indicates that each of the LENOWISCO
sites compare favorably to the comparison sites (i.e., the LENOWISCO sites are as good or
better than the sites selected for future SMR projects).
Further, the STAND tool likely underestimates the value of the LENOWISCO sites, especially
accounting for the co-location of data centers or other industry. This is because the STAND
evaluation does not account for potential future load growth or the retirement of existing
generation assets. It also does not account for numerous inexpensive brownfield sites, an
abundance of water resources (including Lake Keokee, the Clinch River and its tributaries, and
millions of gallons of mine water for cooling), existing right of way to transmissions
infrastructure, and existing rail infrastructure.
The LENOWISCO ROI also has the human expertise and the infrastructure to handle large civil
construction projects.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
2-3
Additionally, LENOWISCO benefits from the presence of the Energy DELTA (Discovery,
Education, Learning & Technology Accelerator) Lab an energy testbed located in Southwest
Virginia focused on leveraging previously-mined land as a proving ground for the
commercialization and deployment of innovative energy technologies. It is a signficant
differentiator for the LENOWISCO ROI because it has the potential to support any necessary
research and development required to site SMRs in the region. It also serves as a facilitator for
the numerous partnerships that will be needed in order to ensure the project’s success. These
factors make the LENOWISCO region stand out as a location for new nuclear in ways that are
not necessarily captured by STAND and other existing siting tools.
The favorability of multiple sites in the region is in and of itself a potential asset. The siting of
multiple reactors in the region has the potential to result in a regional industry and local skilled
workforce which will benefit all sites.
2.3 Governmental Incentives for Nuclear
A variety of governmental incentives exist that could be applied to nuclear projects in the
LENOWISCO ROI. The largest source of federal funding comes from the Inflation Reduction
Act which could potentially provide millions or billions of dollars to nuclear developments in
LENOWISCO. The other incentives could each provide several million dollars.
The Inflation Reduction Act provides the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax
Credit (ITC), one of which may be selected for a new SMR project within the LENOWISCO
ROI. LENOWISCO is well positioned to access these funds, as one of the two 10% boosters
applies for siting in energy communities (for which LENOWISCO certainly qualifies). Along
with the other 10% booster that can be captured if enough of the components of the project are
manufactured domestically, LENOWISCO can take full advantage of the funds available. With
the boosters, the PTC provides an inflation adjusted $30/MWh in tax credits for every MWh of
power produced and the IRA provides 50% of the capital cost for a plant through tax credits.
This makes LENOWISCO a competitive region for SMR vendors looking to fully capture the
benefit of this legislation. Further, the IRA also provides $40 billion in loan guarantees.
LENOWISCO is also well qualified to access funds from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA), which provides funding for clean energy projects on current and former mine land.
This makes LENOWISCO more desirable for SMR vendors. However, this funding is set to
expire in 2026.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
2-4
Some of the sites have features that qualify as abandoned mine land and therefore management
of these features could be completed with funding (likely a few million dollars) from the
Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization Program (AMLER).
2.4 Use of Nuclear Power for Dedicated New Facilities
Virginia is the world leader in data center construction. While the majority of this growth has
been in Northern Virginia, some of this growth has also taken place in the LENOWISCO ROI.
One of the motivations for this project was to evaluate the potential synergy between nuclear
power and new facilities (such as data centers).
Nuclear is well suited for customers with a need for affordable and reliable power (such as a data
centers) because most nuclear power plants are designed to operate at full power at all times,
aside from planned refueling periods when power plants are offline (generally a few weeks every
18-24 months). This is why nuclear power has a greater than 90% capacity factor, meaning that
in a given year the power plant provides on average 90% of its rated capacity (generally 100%
except for refueling periods). This is significantly higher than other carbon free energy sources
such as solar and wind with capacity factors around 25% and 36%, respectively.
The co-location of a nuclear facility and a designated customer provides benefits to both the
power plant and the customer. The customer receives a guaranteed wholesale power rate absent
costs for transmission and line losses. In return, the power plant can receive a guaranteed power
price consistently higher than fluctuating market values. The primary drawback to such an
arrangement is the commercial vulnerability one entity would face if the other entity stopped
supplying or consuming power.
2.5 Use of Nuclear Power for Sale to the Grid
This section reviews the potential for sale of electricity to the bulk power grid from a nuclear
plant sited in the LENOWISCO ROI. The general structure of the power market and the role of
generating assets within that structure was summarized. In order to connect to the PJM grid, the
proposed new generation asset must fund a three-step study phase through the PJM to determine
what infrastructure may be required to ensure grid stability. This study would be performed by
the utility proposing the new generation project, perhaps in conjunction with LENOWISCO. The
LENOWISCO Planning District features three different utility service areas including both
regulated and deregulated utilities, only one of which (Appalachian Power Co.) is a member of
the PJM. This represents a potential hurdle as well as an opportunity. In areas of interest external
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
2-5
to the LENOWISCO ROI, utilities such as Utah Association of Municipal Power Systems
(UAMPS) have shown interest in partnering together for initial SMR development and
deployment as a means of spreading potential risks. LENOWISCO is uniquely suited for a deal
between multiple utilities, and a single disinterested utility will not prevent siting a reactor
elsewhere in the region. Interviews were conducted with both Appalachian Power Co. and
Dominion Energy, and both utilities indicated interest in the construction of large SMRs in the
100’s of MWe output to replace the output of retiring fossil units. The potential for coal-to-
nuclear power plant transitions was also described. No such coal plants are located directly in the
LENOWISCO Planning District. However, in nearby Carbo, a retired coal plant (AEP’s Clinch
River Unit 3) may provide an opportunity for such a transition.
2.6 Economic Effects of Nuclear Infrastructure
New SMRs are expected to cost hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to construct (total
capital investment cost). This cost is expected to be heavily subsidized by various federal
funding programs (discussed in Section 5). The initial construction period will result in a large
amount of temporary employment and spending in the community prior to plant operation.
During operation the plant will directly employ 10-300 people, depending upon the selected
design, which will result in up to 1200 total jobs added to the community. The directly created
power plant jobs will require various levels of education, but it is expected that approximately
half of the jobs will not require a college degree. Even plant designs that are small and
autonomous will provide benefits to the community in the form of tax revenues for the host
county or locality.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
3-1
3 POTENTIAL NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED
The following sections provide a brief description of the nuclear technologies expected to be
available. Some designs have inherent strengths that make them better suited for particular
applications than others.
3.1 Types of Reactors
The current generation of reactors (sometimes referred to as Generation III) mainly use water as
the primary coolant. Coolant is defined as the fluid that is circulated through the reactor to
remove or transfer heat. Generation III reactors can be broadly grouped as pressurized water
reactors (PWRs, examples include Surry and North Anna in the state of VA), boiling water
reactors (BWRs, examples include Brunswick in NC and Limerick in PA), and pressurized
heavy water reactors (PHWRs, examples include CANDU reactors in Canada).
Advancements in reactor technology have enabled reactors to operate at much higher
temperatures which improves thermal efficiency. Some of these designs utilize coolants other
than water to facilitate these higher temperatures. Therefore, the next generation of reactors
(Generation IV) are differentiated by the types of coolant they use. These reactors are molten salt
reactors (MSR), sodium cooled fast reactors (SFR), lead cooled fast reactors (LFR), high
temperature or very high temperature reactors (HTGR or VHTR), and gas cooled fast reactors
(GFR).
Molten salt reactors are defined by their use of molten salt as their coolant. These reactors can
use various salt chemistries, and some incorporate dissolved fuels into the molten salt. Dissolved
fuels enable the operators to make changes to fuel chemistry and concentration without shutting
down to refuel. MSRs can operate at temperatures between 500°C and 750°C. Current research
for MSRs is focused on characterizing and mitigating the corrosion of the molten salts on the
structural materials of the reactors.
Sodium cooled fast reactors and lead cooled fast reactors are very similar designs. Both use
molten metal to cool the reactor and utilize a fast neutron spectrum. SFRs employ sodium as
their coolant, which is nonreactive with respect to the structural materials. Sodium is reactive to
air and water and requires securely designed coolant systems in order to avoid ingress of air and
water. LFRs use lead to cool the reactor. Among the advantages of lead is its ability to absorb
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
3-2
large quantities of heat. Current research is focused on high performance materials for extended
reactor operating periods. Both of these reactors operate between 300°C and 500°C, however,
lead has a much higher boiling point compared to sodium and could reach higher temperatures to
improve efficiency.
Very high temperature reactors and gas cooled fast reactors are also very similar in their designs.
Both of these reactors employ helium as their coolant and reach the highest temperatures of the
designs being developed (up to 1000°C during operation). Similar to the SFR and LFR, the GFR
utilizes fast neutrons. VHTRs use thermal neutrons and need to be moderated by graphite. There
is experience in the United Kingdom (UK) with graphite moderated reactors. Current research is
focused on the development of materials capable of withstanding the high temperatures.
3.2 Reactor Sizes
Nuclear reactors can be described by their electrical power output in addition to their nuclear
technology. Reactors generate heat in order to produce electricity, but not all of the heat is
converted to electricity, much of it is discharged to the environment. This is true for both nuclear
reactors and fossil plants. The heat which is generated is referred to in terms of Megawatts
Thermal (MWth) while the electrical output is referred to in terms of Megawatts Electrical
(MWe). Throughout this report reactors are always referred to by their electrical output, MWe.
Many use cases for advanced nuclear reactors involve the use of heat as well as electricity (e.g.,
some methods of hydrogen generation).
Many reactors include multiple units at the same site (e.g., Surry has two units). Some reactors
are designed for specific efficiencies from operating multiple units at the same site. Others are
designed to be completely independent and derive synergies from co-location only due to use of
common infrastructure beyond the plant boundary (e.g., common right of ways to connect to the
electric grid). In the context of SMRs, multiple units at the same site are sometimes referred to as
modules.
3.2.1 Large Reactors (600-1500 MWe)
Currently, most reactors in operation are large reactors. These reactors produce 600-1500 MWe
and are predominantly traditional light water reactors and heavy water reactors
*
. These reactors
require large areas of land and (usually) large bodies of water for cooling and are therefore
* There are several gas cooled plants that utilize superheated CO2 as a coolant in the UK.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
3-3
normally located along coastlines, lake fronts, or rivers. For scale, Surry Units 1 and 2 produce
roughly 840 MWe and North Anna Unit 1 and 2 provide roughly 950 MWe.
3.2.2 Medium Sized Reactors (300-600 MWe)
Medium sized reactors are defined by an output between 300-600 MWe. Due to the economies
of scale when the current fleet of nuclear reactors were built, it was more economical to build
large facilities that produce as much power as possible. The design of medium sized reactors
were a development step in the design of large reactors.
3.2.3 Small Modular Reactors (<300 MWe)
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) generally have outputs of less than 300 MWe. The term
“modular” comes from the design goal of being able to add more reactors to a site to increase the
scale of the electricity output to match the expected demand. SMRs are designed to have their
largest components small enough to be able to be built in a factory and transported to the build
site for assembly. This significantly decreases construction time, the overall project cost, and the
risk of cost overruns.
The physical size of these reactors is generally small, while plant size is more variable. Some
plant designs, such as the Natrium developed by TerraPower and GE-Hitachi, take upwards of
65,000 m
2
(15 acres) with the goal of multiple reactors being used together to output large
amounts of electricity. Other reactors are designed to be small and power remote locations.
These plants are the size of a truck or a house. A common design goal of SMRs is to provide
variability in output to ensure that the reactor is used efficiently and effectively without taking up
more space than necessary.
Other SMR designs are being created to cover lower electricity generation ranges (between
50 MWe and 80 MWe) and take up less space. These plants are designed to increase the number
of reactors with minimal increase to plant size in order to create a multi-unit site with increased
power output. This allows the plant to scale to the demand of the region.
3.2.4 Microreactors (1-10 MWe)
Multiple designers are creating microreactors, which generate 1-10 MWe. These reactors are
designed to take up as little space as possible and can provide power for remote locations. These
designs require little to no maintenance and are designed to be completely or mostly
autonomous.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
3-4
3.2.5 Cooling Water Requirements
When generating electricity, cooling is needed to condense the steam which is exhausted from
the turbine generator. The steam exhausted from the turbine generator is at low pressures and no
longer has enough energy to be useful for electricity generation. However, the steam still
contains thermal energy (heat) which must be removed in order to be condensed into liquid
water. It is necessary to return the steam to liquid water in order to pump it back to the steam
generator and repeat the process.
This cooling requirement exists for all steam-cycle electrical generators (nuclear, natural gas, or
coal powered). The cooling is provided by the environment, typically in the form of a local water
source or ambient air which is known as the ultimate heat sink. Water cooling is typically 5-7%
more efficient than air, when it is available [1]. However, care must be taken to ensure that the
planned water usage will not affect the local environment as described in Sections 4.2.4.1.2 and
4.2.4.2.1.
Power plants can employ different kinds of cooling technologies, including dry cooling, cooling
towers, and reservoirs, to mitigate the amount of water required by the plant. Dry cooling utilizes
ambient air to cool the condenser and requires a large cooling surface area, increasing initial
construction expenses. Large reservoirs (lakes, oceans, mine water, etc.) are suitable for once
through cooling, where water is pumped into the power plant for cooling raising the water’s
temperature by 10-20°F, and then discharged. The warmer water is returned to the reservoir
where it cools from contact with the earth and air. This requires high water flow rates but does
not consume the water from the reservoir. Cooling towers remove heat by evaporating cooling
water into the atmosphere, they require less water from the source stream or river to operate.
Cooling towers do not return much of the withdrawn water from the source, they instead
discharge it to the atmosphere as vapor. Cooling towers are expensive to construct and operate
but are a good option for cooling reactors sited in areas without natural reservoirs or high flow
rate water sources.
In general, steam cycle power plants are only 30%-50% efficient at converting thermal energy
into electricity. This means that at least half of the thermal energy produced by the power plant
will be rejected to the local environment through the condenser. The cooling requirements are
directly related to the size of the reactor, and how efficiently the plant converts thermal energy
into electricity. Due to the differences in scale between current Generation III reactors, SMRs
and microreactors, the water requirements for these generation facilities can vary by orders of
magnitude. Due to their reduced size, SMRs and microreactors have significantly lower
requirements for access to cooling water, which makes them suitable for a variety of siting
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
3-5
locations which were unsuitable for larger Generation III reactors. Additionally, methods such as
dry cooling, employed by NuScale for their SMR design, can save up to 90% water when
compared to traditional cooling mechanisms [2].
In order to estimate cooling water usage in a once through or reservoir environment Equation [1]
can be used.
(
/
)
=
()
1,000 (
)
[1]
Where:
•
is the rejected energy of the power plant, equal to thermal megawatts produced minus
electrical megawatts produced (MJ/s or MW)
• is the mass flow rate of cooling water required (kg/s)
•
is the specific heat of water, a constant equal to 4.18 (the amount of energy required to
heat a kg of water by 1 degree Celsius) (kJ/°C-kg)
• ΔT is the temperature rise of the water used (°C)
If a cooling tower is used, Equation [1] is modified to Equation [2] which accounts for the
energy required to vaporize water into steam.
(
/
)
=
[(
(
)
) +
]
1,000 (
)
[2]
Where:
•
is the heat of vaporization of water, a constant equal to 2,260 (the amount or energy
required to turn one kilogram of liquid water into vapor) (kJ/kg)
These equations were used to generate the estimated cooling water requirements for some reactor
designs as shown in Table 3-1.
3.3 Commercial Vendors
Demonstration projects are currently in development for multiple reactor sizes. These
demonstration projects will provide a proof of concept that the reactors function as designed and
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
3-6
will resolve licensing process questions with the NRC. There are many reactors currently in pre-
application processes with the NRC and are in the process of working with different
organizations to develop demonstration projects. These different designs are discussed in Table
3-1.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
3-7
Table 3-1 Summary of Commercial Vendors
Vendor
Reactor
Type
Power
Output
(MWe)
Staff
Plant
Footprint
1
Site Footprint
1
Once Through Cooling
Water Requirements
2
Million gpd
(Million gpd/MWe)
Evaporative Cooling
Water Requirements
2
Million gpd
(Million gpd/MWe)
GE-Hitachi
BWRX-300
BWR 300 75
8,400 m
2
(2 acres)
26,300 m
2
(6.5 acres)
570
(2.0)
5.0
(0.018)
TerraPower
Natrium
3
SFR 345 250
65,000 m
2
(16 acres)
180,000 m
2
(44 acres)
620 [3]
(1.8)
5.5
(0.016)
NuScale VOYGR
12
PWR
720 (12
60 MWe
modules)
270
4,877 m
2
(1.2 acres)
140,000 m
2
(35 acres)
1,600
(2.3)
14
(0.020)
X-energy XE-100 HTGR
320 (4
80 MWe
modules)
3
12,700 m
2
(3 acres)
130,000 m
2
(32 acres)
464
(1.4)
4.1
(0.013)
BWXT Project
Pele
HTGR 1-5 2
15 m
2
(0.004 acres)
<2,000 m
2
(< 0.5 acres)
None, air cooled
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
3-8
Table 3-1 Summary of Commercial Vendors
Vendor
Reactor
Type
Power
Output
(MWe)
Staff
Plant
Footprint
1
Site Footprint
1
Once Through Cooling
Water Requirements
2
Million gpd
(Million gpd/MWe)
Evaporative Cooling
Water Requirements
2
Million gpd
(Million gpd/MWe)
Ultrasafe Micro-
Modular Reactor
[4]
HTGR
10 (2
5 MWe
modules)
0
4
12,500 m
2
(3 acres)
< 20,000 m
2
(< 5 acres)
None, air cooled
Westinghouse
eVinci [5]
SFR 5 2
15 m
2
(0.004 acres)
<2,000 m
2
(< 0.5 acres)
Assumed to be air cooled
1
Unless otherwise noted, the areas for plant and site footprints are found on the ARIS IAEA database [6].
2
Per the methodology described in Section 3.2.5. A 10°F temperature rise was assumed for the once through cooling water calculation. A 51°F water supply was
assumed for the evaporative cooling water calculation. The water requirements are shown for each reactor type accounting for the number of modules the vendors
plan to deploy per site. The water requirements for each design are also shown normalized to MWe in order to illustrate that these reactors all have similar cooling
requirements for each MWe generated.
3
A design MWth rating for the Natrium reactor could not be identified. The reactor was assumed to be 35% efficient (986 MWth).
4
In the U.S., the minimum number of personnel is governed by NRC regulations. Minimum on-site personnel requirements specific to microreactors have not been
determined.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
3-9
3.3.1 Large SMR Scale
The GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 is an SMR design that is closer to NRC acceptance than others. The
BWRX-300 is a boiling water reactor designed to produce 300 MWe per reactor (or per unit or
module). This design uses a plant footprint of 8,400 m
2
(2 acres) with 75 staff required during
operation after construction. Currently the BWRX-300 is planned for demonstration construction
at the TVA Clinch River Nuclear Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee with construction of the
demonstration reactor planned to be completed between 2027 and 2028. As the licensing
application process continues, and construction of the TVA nuclear site continues, the BWRX-
300 will become a more viable option for different locations around the country interested in
SMR technology. The BWRX-300 requires typical grid connections and has the option for once-
through cooling (i.e., the temperature rise associated with final cooling water is low enough that
a small stream can be used instead of a large thermal reservoir like a lake), allowing for more
options for locations than a traditional power plant which requires large volumes of cooling
water [6,7].
The TerraPower Natrium is an advanced reactor that is closer to being licensed than most. The
Natrium is a 345 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactor, with a plant size of 65,000 m
2
(16 acres)
employing 250 staff after construction. Note that the Natrium reactor is not a modular reactor,
and the stated plant size is believed to be necessary for each unit. The Natrium has a
demonstration project underway in Kemmerer, Wyoming, on the site of the soon to be retired
Naughton Coal Plant. After this demonstration, TerraPower plans to have the first commercial
Natrium reactor running by 2028. Currently the reactor is in the pre-application process with the
NRC and is an Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) award recipient. The
estimated cost for each reactor aims to be under 2 billion dollars [8,9,10].
3.3.2 Medium SMR Scale
The NuScale SMR design for their VOYGR plant is the first SMR design to be approved by the
NRC for use in the US and is an ARDP winner. The NuScale SMR is designed to produce
60 MWe using a smaller, scalable version of the PWR technologies. The VOYGR plant design
currently calls for up to 12 modules, to produce a total of 720 MWe when the whole plant is
constructed. This plant is planned to take up 4,877 m
2
(1.2 acres) and employs 270 staff after
construction. The NuScale VOYGR SMR plant is to be built at Idaho National Labs and plant
operations are planned to begin in 2030. NuScale is also working to identify sites in Wisconsin
and Missouri [11,12].
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
3-10
The X-energy XE-100 is a pebble-bed, high-temperature gas reactor producing 80 MWe. This
design utilizes four reactors per plant, producing 320 MWe total. The XE-100 plant is designed
to take up 12700 m
2
(3 acres) and employ up to 10 staff after construction. X-energy is also a
recipient of the ARDP award from the NRC and is using this award to deliver their 4-module
plant design to Energy Northwest’s Columbia Nuclear Plant in Washington state by 2027.
Currently the XE-100 is in the pre-application process with the NRC [13,14,15].
Other mid-sized SMRs like Holtech’s SMR-160 and Kairos Power’s Fluoride Salt-Cooled High-
Temperature Reactor are under development.
3.3.3 Micro SMR Scale
The BWXT Project Pele microreactor is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor that is designed
to produce 1-5 MWe. This reactor is designed to be transportable and simple to set up in order to
provide power to remote locations. This reactor will be built by BWXT under a contract awarded
by the US Department of Defense Strategic Capabilities Office. The microreactor is planned to
be delivered to a demonstration site at the Idaho National Laboratory by 2024. The Project Pele
microreactor system is designed to be transported in a 20-foot-long shipping container, which
holds the complete plant. This reactor is designed to require two staff during operation. BWXT’s
Project Pele microreactor will be the first advanced microreactor built in the US and, while it is
currently a DoD funded, non-commercial project, it may be available to consumers in a similar
timeline to other advanced SMRs [16,17].
The Ultrasafe Micro-Modular Reactor is a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor designed to
produce 5 MWe. This design calls for two reactors per plant, intending to produce 10 MWe with
a plant size of 12,500 m
2
(3 acres). This reactor is being licensed in both Canada and the US. The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) is planning to engage in pre-application
activities with the NRC to build a test version of the Ultrasafe MMR on their campus. The
reactor is planned to be operational in Canada in 2026 and the reactor at UIUC is planned to
operational in the following year. This reactor plant is designed to be easily scalable to meet
demand as needed. If more than the initial two reactors are needed, the site is designed to house
more reactors easily and efficiently [18,19,20].
The Westinghouse eVinci microreactor is a sodium-cooled fast reactor designed to produce
5 MWe. Initial design work for this reactor was initially conducted under Project Pele, but it was
not selected by the Department of Defense for further advancement. The eVinci microreactor is
currently in the pre-application phase of NRC licensing but is planning to have a demonstration
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
3-11
unit ready for construction and testing by 2025. Westinghouse has been working with
Pennsylvania State University to explore siting a test reactor on their campus. Similar to
BWXT’s Project Pele reactor, the eVinci reactor is designed to be transported in a shipping
container to remote sites. This allows for electricity generation wherever it is needed with
minimal set up time [21,22,23,24,25].
Other microreactors are in development, such as the X-energy XE-mobile, Radiant, and the
Toshiba Energy Solution’s MoveluX. However, these reactors are still in development.
3.4 Implications of Nuclear Technology Options for LENOWISCO
In general, it is assumed that the specific type of reactor installed is not important to this
feasibility study. Each of the designs discussed in this report are much smaller than those
currently operating in the domestic commercial fleet (such as Virginia’s Surry and North Anna
which generate 840 MWe per unit and 950 MWe per unit, respectively). The newer designs
considered for LENOWISCO are designed to be smaller and more economical to build. Multiple
modules can be co-located to scale with the power output that is needed. A driver behind this
economic construction is the idea that the largest components in each design can still be
manufactured in a factory and transported to the build site. This significantly decreases
construction time, the overall project cost, and the risk of cost overruns. Many designs also rely
on air cooling and do not eject large quantities of heat to a nearby body of water or river,
minimizing the impact they will have on the surrounding area. Further, each of the designs are
much smaller than the large LWRs that came before them. It is reasonable to plan for these
designs to be co-located with the customers that will use their power.
The primary differentiating factor between the designs is the power output. The chosen design
should supply the same amount of electricity that that is demanded by co-located and nearby
customers. Sites that require 300 MWe or more should consider a large SMR such as the GE-
Hitachi BWRX-300 (a BWR with 1-2 300 MWe modules) or the TerraPower Natrium (a
345 MWe SFR). A site that needs 60-300 MWe should consider multiple modules of a medium
sized SMR such as the NuScale VOYGR (a PWR with up to 12 60 MWe modules) or the X-
energy XE-100 (a HTGR with 4 80 MWe modules). A site that needs <50 MWe should consider
one or more micro reactors such as the BWXT Project Pele (a HTGR that produces 1-5 MWe),
the Ultrasafe Micro-Modular Reactor (a HTGR with 2 5 MWe modules), or the Westinghouse
eVinci (a SFR that produces 5 MWe).
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-1
4 POTENTIAL SITE EVALUATIONS
The selection of a site for a nuclear power plant is a multi-step process which is performed
following the guidance in NUREG-1555 (US NRC, 2007e) and Regulatory Guide 4.2 (US NRC,
2018) [26,27]. The first step of this process is identifying a “region of interest” (ROI) which is
the geographic area which will be investigated. The LENOWISCO Planning District and
neighboring Dickenson County geographic footprint is the region of interest for this project.
This ROI has numerous benefits that make it ideal for SMR development. These include
numerous inexpensive brownfield sites, an abundance of water resources (including Lake
Keokee, the Clinch River and its tributaries, and millions of gallons of mine water for cooling),
existing right of way to transmissions infrastructure, and existing rail infrastructure. Further,
LENOWISCO has the human expertise and the infrastructure to handle large civil construction
projects. There are few environmental restrictions regarding the preservation of the existing
environment because prospective SMR sites that could be located on previously mined lands
offer an opportunity for a higher and better post-mine use.
From the ROI, a number of candidate areas are identified for further analysis. Candidate areas
are large tracts of land which could provide multiple locations for a nuclear site. The candidate
areas are identified by applying exclusionary and avoidance factors to the ROI (e.g., avoiding
areas with no cooling water availability, avoiding national parks, or avoiding areas with high
population density). Potential sites were identified within LENOWISCO for further analysis. The
potential sites were selected with sufficient diversity in order to demonstrate that the major trade-
offs between siting locations have been assessed. As the project moves forward, the identified
candidate sites could be clarified and narrowed for further screening (e.g., water supply,
transportation access, transmission line access, ecological effects). In further screening, preferred
sites may become clearer. Subsequent examinations and analyses would then be performed for a
specific site by either economic developers and/or a utility. Moreover, this initial evaluation
illustrates that each site reviewed within this Feasibility Study meets the preliminary threshold of
siting an SMR.
Within the LENOWISCO ROI, some example sites were chosen to demonstrate the range of
sites that could be available. The STAND tool was used to evaluate the suitability of these areas
and some comparison sites for nuclear development. The comparison sites, include conventional
nuclear power plants, potential SMR sites outside of LENOWISCO, and current coal and natural
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-2
gas power plants. The STAND tool was used to assess the suitability of the sites for a baseline
case where all of the attributes relevance is set to medium, a microreactor, and a 300 MWe SMR.
The remainder of this section is structured as follows.
• Section 4.1 identifies examples of potential sites from the LENOWISCO ROI.
• Section 4.2 provides the regulatory considerations that apply to siting nuclear power plants.
• Section 4.3 discusses the inputs gathered from community stakeholders.
• Section 4.4 discusses the factors which affect siting that are included in the STAND
analysis.
• Section 4.5 discusses the use of the STAND tool and the results of the STAND analysis.
• Section 4.6 provides an overview of why the LENOWISCO Planning District ROI is
particularly well suited for the siting of new nuclear power plants.
4.1 Example Potential Sites
A number of sites have been identified as being attractive options for nuclear reactor siting.
These sites are described in Section 4.1.1, and were evaluated with the STAND tool as described
in Section 4.5. In addition to the sites identified in the LENOWISCO ROI, four sites outside of
the region were chosen for STAND evaluation to provide a comparison. The four comparison
sites are described in Section 4.1.2.
4.1.1 Potential LENOWISCO Sites
The following sections provide descriptions of each example site.
4.1.1.1 Limestone
The Limestone site is located at the coordinates 36.7315, -82.7653. The approximate location is
shown in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2. The Limestone site consists of roughly 4 acres of currently
available land in Scott County (as shown in Figure 4-3) making it potentially large enough for
multiple 300 MWe units. It is also adjacent to a Kentucky Utility transformer and an AEP
substation. The site is a former quarry with caves and rock features at a constant 55°F and mine
water at a constant 51°F. It is also located near a residential area which must be considered
during siting. Tempur-Pedic, a mattress manufacturer, has a manufacturing facility near the site.
They and the residential community could serve as existing potential customers. This site has
access to rail lines for transportation. The Limestone site does not have any mines intersecting it.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-3
Figure 4-1 Limestone Google Maps Pin
Figure 4-2 Limestone Wetlands Map
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-4
Figure 4-3 Limestone Site Expected Acreage
4.1.1.2 Lee County
The Lee County Site is located at coordinates 36.8680, -82.8554. The approximate location is
shown in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5. It is across Route 606 from the Bullit Site (discussed in
Section 4.1.1.3). Surface Mine Reclamation on these specific 10 acres are nearing completion (as
has access to rail lines for transportation and is less than a mile from Lake Keokee. This site has
an AML feature (see Section 5.3) that has $500,000 in AMLER grant funding comitted. There
are underground mine seams below the site (Dorchester, Imboden, and Wilson Mines) with mine
water available for SMRs and potentially for use such as cooling for data centers. At present,
backfill material is on-site that could possibly be utilized to shape a SMR pad. The site is located
near a KU sub-station.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-5
Figure 4-4 Lee County Google Maps Pin
Figure 4-5 Lee County Wetlands Map
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-6
Figure 4-6 Lee County Site Expected Acreage
4.1.1.3 Bullit
The Bullit site is located in Wise County at coordinates 36.8867, -82.8581 and is very close to
the the Lee County border. It is across Route 606 from the Lee County Site (discussed in
Section 4.1.1.2). The Bullit site’s approximate location is shown in Figure 4-7 and Figure 4-8.
This is the largest potential SMR chosen as an example site with over 4,000 acres available to be
built on. One example within this Bullit tract is a 76 acre portion of currently available land in
There are three underground mined seams below the Bullit site with substantial amounts of mine
water available for SMRs and for other uses such as cooling for data centers.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-7
Figure 4-7 Bullit Google Maps Pin
Figure 4-8 Bullit Wetlands Map
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-8
Figure 4-9 Bullit Expected Site Acreage
4.1.1.4 Red Onion
The Red Onion site is located at coordinates 37.1221, -82.5381. The approximate location is
shown in Figure 4-11 and Figure 4-12. It is near the intersection of Wise and Dickenson
counties. The Red Onion site consists of 25 acres of currently available land in Dickenson
units. No coal has been mined at this site in over 30 years. This site is located near Red Onion
prison (built in the late 1990s) which must be considered when evaluating evacuation zones. The
Red Onion site intersects with the Clintwood, Imboden, Imboden Marker, Lower Banner, and
Norton Mines.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-10
Figure 4-12 Red Onion Approximate Site Acreage
4.1.1.5 Mineral Gap
Mineral Gap is located at the coordinates 36.9753, -82.5367. The approximate location is shown
in Figure 4-13 and Figure 4-14. The Mineral Gap site consists of 76 acres of currently available
land in Wise County (as shown in Figure 4-15) making it potentially large enough for multiple
300 MWe units. The Mineral Gap site intersects with the Blair, Lyons, Upper Banner, and
Kennedy mines. The Clintwood and Dorchester mines intersect very slightly into the Mineral
Gap site.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-11
Figure 4-13 Mineral Gap Google Maps Pin
Figure 4-14 Mineral Gap Wetlands Map
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-12
Figure 4-15 Mineral Gap Expected Site Acreage
4.1.1.6 VCHEC Virginia City
VCHEC is located at the coordinates 36.9215, -82.3347. The approximate location is shown in
Figure 4-16 and Figure 4-17. This site is an operating coal plant and is not available for
immediate development. No specific location has been identified within this acreage. However,
it has been included in this study for future reference. The Virginia City site intersects with the
Jawbone and Raven mines.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-13
Figure 4-16 VCHEC Virginia City Google Maps Pin
Figure 4-17 VCHEC Virginia City Wetlands Map
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-14
4.1.1.7 Project Intersection
The Project Intersection site is located at coordinates 36.9452, -82.6087 and is located within the
City of Norton and being developed as an industrial park. The approximate location is shown in
Figure 4-18 and Figure 4-19. This site may have sufficient acreage to support microreactors but
there is likely not enough space for a larger SMR. A sub-station is located directly adjacent to
Project Intersection. The site is located within the City of Norton and close to a population
center, single-family homes, businesses, a school, and shopping centers which must be carefully
considered during siting. It is possible that underground mined seams (Norton mine and Blair
mine) could be used by SMRs and data centers for cooling.
Figure 4-18 Project Intersection Google Maps Pin
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-15
Figure 4-19 Project Intersection Wetlands Map
4.1.2 Comparison Sites
Five comparison sites were selected.
• AEP’s Clinch River Coal Station: Appalachian Electric Power’s (AEP) Fossil Clinch
River Site was originally constructed as a three-unit coal station. It is located in Carbo,
Virginia along the Clinch River. In 2016 two of the coal units were converted into natural
gas burners, and the third was retired. Unit three is potentially available for a coal-to-
nuclear transition. Access to cooling water is potentially available due to the plants position
along the Clinch River. The distance to any large population area allows for safe proximity
for nuclear development.
• TVA’s Kingston Fossil Plant: The Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Kingston Fossil
Plant is a 9 unit coal fired power plant on a reservation of 1,255 acres. The plant is situated
on a peninsula formed by the Clinch and Emory rivers in Tennessee. TVA is currently
planning to retire the fossil plant. Retirement opens up an opportunity to replace the area
with a nuclear plant, utilizing the existing infrastructure. Site location provides access to
cooling water, as well as adequate distance from large populations [28,29].
• North Anna Nuclear Generating Station: Dominion Energy’s North Anna Nuclear
Generating Station is a 1,075-acre nuclear power plant located on the North Anna river.
North Anna currently operates two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors. A 40-year
operating licenses for the two units were originally issued in 1978 and 1980. A 20-year
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-16
license extension was granted in 2003 for both units, which allows the units to operate until
2038 and 2040 respectively. In 2017 North Anna received a Combined Construction and
Operating License (COL) for a third reactor although construction of this unit is not
currently being pursued.
• TVA’s Clinch River Nuclear Site: This site, near Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is
currently being prepared for construction of the GE Hitachi BWRX-300, a boiling water
SMR. TVA is currently preparing a construction application for the BWRX-300. The
BWRX-300 is still in the pre-application activities with the NRC. This site provides a good
example of an undeveloped area that has already been selected for SMR development
[30,31].
• Natrium Demonstration Site: This is a demonstration site for the TerraPower Natrium
reactor located in Kemmerer, WY. The Natrium reactor is a sodium-cooled fast reactor that
is currently in the pre-application activities with the NRC. This site will replace the
Naughton coal fired power plant which is set to retire in 2025. This allows the Natrium
team to take advantage of existing grid infrastructure already in place. This provides
another good example of a site chosen for SMR development. The attributes of this site are
a good point of comparison for other sites looking to house SMRs of different types
[32,33,34].
4.2 Regulatory Considerations
The siting of a nuclear power plant is subject to federal regulations. These regulations stem from
both the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) through the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) as well as various laws associated with environmental protection (e.g., The Clean Water
Act and The Endangered Species Act). Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.2.2 describe the initial
process to identify the Region of Interest and Candidate Areas which will be reviewed for
compliance with siting criteria and regulations. Section 4.2.3 lists the regulations which form the
basis for siting criteria which are discussed in Section 4.2.4.
4.2.1 Identification of the Region of Interest
The region of interest may be selected based on geographic boundaries such as state lines. The
ROI is composed of the area considered for siting of the nuclear reactor (e.g., the LENOWISCO
Planning District and neighboring Dickenson County). The ROI is further defined by a purpose
and need which may be defined by the applicant (e.g., provide 300 MWe generation capacity
within the LENOWISCO region to stimulate data center investments). The ROI should be large
enough that it does not prevent the inclusion of locations where the defined project objectives
can be achieved. The selection process of the ROI may include restrictions due to siting
constraints, population density, or proximity to load centers or transmission lines. The selection
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-17
process for the ROI will be described in the environmental report submitted with the license
application.
4.2.2 Identification of Candidate Areas
Candidate areas are selected within the region of interest by excluding locations where the
nuclear power plant cannot be sited due to regulatory, environmental, or business constraints
(e.g., locations within national parks, upon tribal land, or with no access transportation
networks). In addition to excluding areas where siting is not feasible, the candidate areas may be
defined by avoiding areas which are expected to be unfavorable (e.g., areas containing wetlands,
critical habitat for endangered species, or with no immediately available source of cooling
water). The exclusionary and avoidance factors used to define the candidate areas from the
region of interest should be documented during the siting process. Once the candidate areas have
been defined, a number of discrete potential sites may be selected for further evaluation.
4.2.3 Applicable Regulations
The applicable federal regulations for siting a nuclear power plant are described in Regulatory
Guide 4.7 “General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations” (US NRC, 2014c) [35].
These regulations are broadly summarized as:
• Title 10, Part 50, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50), “Domestic
Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” requires that structures important to
safety be designed to withstand the effects of expected natural phenomena during accident
conditions without a loss of capability to perform their safety functions [36]. This
requirement broadly specifies that the site must be selected with an understanding of
anticipated seismic, flooding, tornado, and other environmental hazards. The power plant
must be designed to ensure these hazards do not prevent safe shutdown operations.
• The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq) and the
Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 – 1508) require
detailed environmental statements on proposed major Federal actions that will significantly
affect the quality of the human environment [37]. This requirement specifies that the
Federal decision-making process considers the environmental impacts of nuclear power
plant construction and operation, as well as the available alternatives (including no
construction or alternative siting).
• 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Functions,” provides the regulations associated with the preparation of
environmental impact statements pursuant to NEPA as well as the Clean Water Act (CWA)
[38]. The regulations provided in 10 CFR 51.45 set forth the required contents of the
environmental report submitted by the applicant.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-18
• 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,”
provides regulations on the issuance of early site permits and combined licenses for nuclear
power facilities[39]. These regulations include the requirements which must be met for the
NRC to issue licenses for construction. These requirements include the issuance of a final
safety analysis report which provides information related to site location, population
considerations, locations of nearby industrial facilities, and postulated radioactive releases
in the event of an accident.
• 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria” specifies the attributes required to be considered
in determining a site to be acceptable for a nuclear power reactor [40]. These attributes
include: seismology, meteorology, geology, hydrology, population density, etc.
The regulations above provide an overarching framework for the site selection process. These
regulations are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.4. When applying for a license to operate
a nuclear reactor, an environmental report is required to be submitted as part of the application.
Following the site selection process detailed in Regulatory Guide 4.7 will ensure that the
environmental report generated will meet the requirements of Regulatory Guide 4.2 “Preparation
of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,” in accordance with the guidance of
NUREG-1555 “Environmental Standard Review Plan.”
It is recognized that during early site selection efforts, limited information will be available.
During early efforts to categorize the ROI, candidate areas, and potential sites a low level of
detail is required. Early siting efforts should proceed with sufficient documentation to show the
regulator that the applicant considered locations with environmental diversity and viable
alternative sites were investigated for siting. Following the identification of potential sites, more
detailed analysis is applied to identify the candidate sites and proposed site.
4.2.4 Regulation Review
This section provides a review of the siting constraints due to the regulations listed in
Section 4.2.3. These siting constraints must be fully evaluated during the siting process but may
not require evaluation during early stages of siting (i.e., most detailed investigation occurs
between the identification of potential sites and the selection of a proposed site).
4.2.4.1 Health and Safety Criteria
This section describes the criteria associated with siting which may affect the health and safety
of the public or reactor operators. Some criteria concern natural phenomena (e.g., earthquake or
flood), an increase in the radiological consequences of accidents to people (e.g., dense
populations), or an increase in the radiological consequences of accidents to the environment
(e.g., local aquifers or surface waters).
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-19
4.2.4.1.1 Geology/Seismology
The proposed site must be suitable for a nuclear power plant with respect to surface faulting,
potential earthquake induced ground motion, and foundation. These criteria are described in
10 CFR 100.23 and 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(vi). Regulatory Guide 1.206 “Combined License
Application for Nuclear Power Plants” describes the geological information which will be
required for licensing of the proposed site [41]. In general, regions which are expected to be
subject to peak ground acceleration greater than 0.3 g during a design basis earthquake should be
excluded from the candidate areas. Siting a power plant greater than 200 miles from a capable
tectonic structure (seismic source) will reduce the need for detailed geological investigation.
Surface faulting and deformation are evaluated within 25 miles of the proposed site.
Geologically hazardous areas such as those with unstable slope, at risk of collapse, near-surface
coal mined-out regions, etc. should be avoided in site selection. Areas with unstable soil due to
mineralogy, water content, high groundwater table, etc. should also be avoided.
4.2.4.1.2 Cooling System Requirements
Nuclear reactors require a cooling source in order to reject waste heat. Traditional large light
water reactors utilize cooling water via either direct cooling or an evaporative cooling tower.
Smaller advanced reactor designs may utilize air cooling in place of water cooling. When a
reactor design has been identified, the supply of cooling air or water must be evaluated.
Regulatory Guide 1.27 “Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants” provides guidance on
water supplies for nuclear power plants [42].
If cooling water is required, the water sources within the ROI should be investigated. The use
and consumption of cooling water is generally governed by state policies. If consumptive water
use is planned, then the quantity of use for power plant operation will need to be specified. A
reasonable assurance that the consumptive water use will be permitted by the appropriate local or
state agencies should be obtained. Cooling water sources should also be screened against intake
flow limits as specified in the Clean Water Act 316(b).
If thermal heat or chemical effluents are planned to be discharged from the power plant, they are
governed by the Clean Water Act, 40 CFR Part 122 “EPA Administered Permit Programs: The
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,” 40 CFR Part 423 “Steam Electric Power
Generating Point Source Category,” as well as State water quality standards [43,44]. Upon
submission of a license application, the NRC will require a certification from the state that the
proposed discharges will comply with the applicable requirements and limitations.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-20
Cooling water may be sourced from rivers or lakes (surface waters), groundwater, or reclaimed
water supplies (e.g., effluent from other industrial processes). Areas without adequate cooling
water supply may be excluded from the candidate areas. Water supply plans should be developed
for candidate sites including an evaluation of low-flow conditions based on historical seven-day
and ten-year low flows. Additionally, water supply plans will require projections of water use
and consumption into the future throughout the operating period of the proposed nuclear plant.
Site-specific water supply features should also be considered such as the need for pumping
facilities, water treatment facilities, and reservoirs.
Fogging and icing can be a concern if cooling towers, lakes, canals, or spray ponds are planned
to be used in the reactor design. The discharged water vapor may result in plumes which degrade
visibility and cause challenges with routine transportation and emergency evacuation. Sites
which experience natural fogging or icing may have these conditions worsened by the discharged
vapor. Sites should be evaluated for the mean number of days heavy fog (<0.25-mile visibility is
experienced). The potential effects of fogging and icing are described in Section 5.1.1 “The Site
and Vicinity” and Section 5.3.3.1 “Heat Dissipation to Atmosphere” of NUREG-1555.
If ambient air cooling is required, general climate conditions should be evaluated, and locations
with the lowest dry bulb temperature are the most preferable. Maximum, minimum, and average
annual and monthly air temperatures should be evaluated based on the nearest weather station for
a period of the previous 20 years.
4.2.4.1.3 Flooding
The proposed site should not be subject to flooding conditions. None of the candidate sites
identified within the LENOWISCO ROI were found to fall within the 100-year nor 500-year
floodplain. 10 CFR 100.20(c)(3) and 10 CFR 100.23(d)(3) require that a maximum probable
flood be determined. This determination will include floods which may be seismically induced
(including dam failures), localized flooding, river flooding (including blockage or diversion),
tsunami, and storm surge. Regulatory Guide 1.59, “Design Basis Floods,” describes an
acceptable method for determining the maximum probable flood [45]. Candidate areas and
potential sites should be screened against 100-year flood zone data as a basic exclusion. When
identifying candidate sites, the flooding analysis is further refined in consultation with 100-year
and 500-year flood zones, as well as describing proximity to flooding concerns as well as site
elevation compared to the nearest body of water.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-21
4.2.4.1.4 Local Hazardous Land Uses
The proposed site should be located away from other hazardous land uses. 10 CFR 100.21(e)
requires that nearby hazardous land uses be evaluated to ensure that they do not pose an undue
risk to the facility. The proposed site should be located greater than 10 miles from major airports
and greater than 5 miles from hazardous facilities and activities to the extent possible. Hazardous
land uses within the 5 mile area will have to be evaluated as part of the license application.
Hazardous land uses are postulated to generate: missiles, shock waves, flammable vapor clouds,
toxic chemicals, or incendiary fragments. Existing land uses that are considered potentially
hazardous include: military bases, oil or gas wells and pipelines or storage, manufacturing
facilities, chemical facilities or refineries, mining and quarrying operations involving blasting,
dams, freight rail lines, highways, docks, or nearby power plants.
4.2.4.1.5 Extreme Weather Conditions
Nuclear power plants must be designed to withstand extreme weather conditions such as
tornadoes, hurricanes, and excessive rainfall. However, these conditions are not expected to vary
significantly between potential sites within the same region. Consequently, extreme weather
conditions are not typically assessed during the identification of potential sites. When candidate
sites are identified they may be assessed for peak gusts, number of tornadoes per 10,000 square
miles, number of hurricanes, and maximum 24-hour precipitation (rain or snow).
4.2.4.1.6 Population Density
The proposed site must meet the population density requirements described in 10 CFR 100.21
which requires:
• An exclusion area surrounding the reactor in which the reactor licensee has the authority to
determine all activities including exclusion or removal of personnel and property from the
area.
• A low population zone (LPZ) surrounding the exclusion area which contains residents, the
total number of density of which are such that there is a reasonable probability that
protective measures could be taken on their behalf in the event of a serious accident.
• The nearest population center of more than 25,000 residents located at least 1.33 times the
distance from the reactor to the outer boundary of the LPZ.
In practice, the proposed siting should be such that the population density including the transient
population (migrant labor, recreational hikers, etc.) does not exceed 500 persons per square mile
for a radial distance of 20 miles. The ROI may be reduced to candidate areas by applying an
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-22
exclusion factor for population densities greater than 300 persons per square mile to account for
future population growth. The candidate areas may also exclude regions within the following
distances of population centers:
• Within 4 miles of a population center of 25,000 residents
• Within 10 miles of a population center of 100,000 residents
• Within 20 miles of a population center of 500,000 residents
• Within 30 miles of a population center of 1,000,000 residents
Deviations from the above guidance will require justification during the licensing process but
may be acceptable pending other siting characteristics such as superior seismic characteristics,
lower environmental impacts, or better access to transmission or transportation infrastructure.
4.2.4.1.7 Emergency Planning
The proposed site is required to be located such that adequate plans to protect the public in
emergencies can be developed in accordance with 10 CFR 100.21(g) and 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1)(i).
Guidance to meet these regulations can be found in NUREG-0654, “Criteria for Preparation and
Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power
Plants: Criteria for Emergency Planning in an Early Site Permit Application” [46]. Special site
characteristics such as an egress limitation from the area surrounding the site should be
considered (e.g., a single roadway out of a region, bridges, etc.). Additionally, the presence of a
population with special requirements for evacuation must be considered (e.g., hospitals, prisons,
schools, etc.) If major differences exist between the candidate sites, the emergency planning
characteristics may play a role in the selection of the candidate and proposed site. An evacuation
time estimate must be conducted for the final proposed site to assess the suitability of the site
with respect to emergency planning in accordance with NUREG/CR-7002 Revision 1, Criteria
for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies [47].
4.2.4.1.8 Atmospheric Dispersion
If an accident occurs at the proposed site, airborne radiation or other hazardous materials may be
released to the environment. The effect of these releases is dependent upon atmospheric
dispersion characteristics of the site. Wind speed, wind direction, and the change in air
temperature with elevation will all affect the atmospheric dispersion of an airborne release. In
general, higher wind speeds will result in increased atmospheric dispersion (i.e., farther spread)
and lower the consequences (i.e., more dilution) of the release in any target area. Local
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-23
geographic phenomena such as canyons, valleys, and mountain ranges can result in significant
variations between a proposed site and the general region. Siting locations which would
significantly restrict airborne dispersion such as valleys or areas surrounded by hills should be
avoided. Available data such as average annual wind speeds and direction may be used to
compare the suitability of candidate sites.
The proposed reactor design as well as the proposed site atmospheric dispersion characteristics
will be required inputs to ensure compliance with various regulations. 10 CFR
50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(1), 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(ix)(A), and 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(vi)(A) require the
exclusion area be large enough to limit the radiation received by a member of the public during a
postulated radiation release to 25 rem total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) during a 2 hour
period. 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(2), 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(ix)(B), and 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(vi)(B)
require the low population zone to be large enough to limit the radiation received by a member
of the public during a postulated accident to 25 rem TEDE. The atmospheric dispersion
characteristics of the proposed site are analyzed in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.23
“Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants” [48].
4.2.4.1.9 Groundwater Requirements
The proposed site must be analyzed for the potential of an accident or routine effluent discharge
to result in ground water contamination. 10 CFR 100.20(c)(3) requires that factors important to
hydrological radionuclide transport be assessed from onsite measurements. These factors include
soil, sediment, and rock characteristics, ground water velocity, and adsorption coefficients,
among others. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established three classes of
groundwater under The Groundwater Protection Strategy. Locations containing Class I, or
special groundwater, may be excluded from the candidate area. Sites located near sole source
aquifers should also be excluded from the candidate area. When evaluating candidate sites, the
vulnerability of each site’s groundwater may be assessed using the EPA’s DRASTIC model [49].
The license application will need to include a conceptual ground water site model which
considers the characteristics of the nearby ground and surface waters which determines the most
severe radiological impact on existing and future uses of ground and surface water resources.
4.2.4.1.10 Radionuclide Pathways
Nuclear power reactors are generally designed to allow for routine liquid and gaseous radioactive
discharges. These effluents are discharged at low concentrations and low flow rates in order to
limit the consequence of the release to people and the environment.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-24
Radioactive liquid releases to surface water such as streams, rivers, or lakes, may be limited
based on the potential dilution flowrate, the proximity of the discharge to consumptive users, and
the baseline radioactivity of the surface water. Proposed sites with higher dilution capacity,
further proximity to public water supply or recreational use, and lower baseline radioactivity are
preferred.
Radioactive releases can result in the contamination of food stores via airborne or liquid
pathways. Subsequent ingestion of contaminated food can result in dose to the population.
Candidate sites should be screened at the county level for nearby agricultural sites. Agricultural
uses of land which could be affected by airborne releases include farming and grazing.
Agricultural uses of water which could be affected by liquid releases include irrigation. Food and
irrigation exposure pathways are generally minimal, but site locations with lower irrigated or
non-irrigated crop and pasturelands are preferred.
4.2.4.1.11 Security
10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(x) and 10 CFR 100.21(f) specify that the characteristics of the proposed site
are such that adequate security plans and measures can be developed. Guidance related to the
development of security plans and measures can be found in NUREG-0800, Section 13.6.1 and
13.6.3 [50]. In general, the site must be able to show that nearby industrial, transportation, and
military facilities, regional climatology, floods, ice effects, and seismology will not prevent the
development of adequate controls which meet security requirements.
4.2.4.2 Ecological Criteria
This section describes the criteria associated with ecological disruption to the environment which
may be affected by the proposed reactor. Criteria may result from potential effects on aquatic or
terrestrial ecology caused by either the construction or operation of the proposed reactor. The
effects on important species must also be considered. Important species are defined in
Regulatory Guide 4.7 as any species which is:
1. Commercially or recreationally valuable
2. Endangered or threatened
3. Able to affect the well-being of some important species within criteria (1) or (2) or if it is
critical to the structure and function of a valuable ecological system or is a biological
indicator of radionuclides in the environment.
4. Endangered and threatened species are defined by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as amended.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-25
These effects must be understood and assessed during the siting process which will culminate in
the issuance of an environmental report with the license application.
4.2.4.2.1 Aquatic Effects of Construction and Operation
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act, the proposed site should not disrupt designated
critical habitat of threated or endangered species. The habitat areas (year-round or seasonal) of
important species to be avoided include breeding, nursing, nesting, spawning, wintering and
feeding areas. If possible, cooling waters should not be sourced from critical habitats. If no other
cooling waters are available, critical habitats may be considered with significant environmental
review. The proposed sites may be assessed with and without critical habitat restrictions to
determine the overall impact of critical habitats. At the proposed site screening level, each site
may be ranked by the overall number of protected or endangered species located in its host
county. At the candidate site screening level, sites may be evaluated based on more detailed
evaluations of the habitat, existing land uses surrounding the water body, water quality data, and
detailed plans for construction of a water intake structure which minimizes impact to aquatic
species.
An evaluation of sediment disruption during construction should also be performed. Short term
effects relating to dredging and construction may disturb contaminated sediments which can then
impact human health and wildlife. Sediment toxicity is of concern in areas which have been
subject to mining or industrial uses. Fine-grained sediments such as muds are generally more
contaminated than coarse sandy sediments, and sites with higher proportion of clays and silts are
the least suitable for construction. Periodic maintenance dredging of the site during operation
may also be required. The rate of sedimentation at the site may be considered to determine how
often maintenance dredging may be required.
During operation, the proposed nuclear reactor will impact the cooling body of water via thermal
discharge and water withdrawal. Thermal discharge of waste heat to the proposed body of water
must be conducted in accordance with state and federal Clean Water Act regulations. Once-
through cooling systems have more difficulty meeting relevant thermal discharge limits than
evaporative (cooling tower) systems. In addition to siting the plant away from waters which
compose critical habitats, the power plant should be sited with a preference for cooling water
supplies of higher flow rate which will dilute the thermal discharges more efficiently.
The removal of water from the target cooling water supply will be subject to EPA regulation
316(b) of the Clean Water Act regarding impingement and entrainment. Entrainment refers to the
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-26
intake of small organisms such as small fish, eggs, or plankton into the power plant along with
the cooling water supply. Organisms which are entrained may be subject to high mortality when
passing through plant systems. Impingement refers to the trapping of larger fish, turtles, or other
wildlife against plant intake structure screens where elevated intake flow rates prevent the escape
of the wildlife. In NUREG 1437 the NRC concluded that evaporative cooling towers allow for
the protection of aquatic species from impingement and entrainment regardless of siting.
Proposed once-through cooling systems may require additional evaluation with respect to the
effects of impingement and entrainment during the siting process.
4.2.4.2.2 Terrestrial Effects of Construction and Operation
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act, the proposed site should not disrupt designated
critical habitat of threated or endangered species. The habitat areas (year-round or seasonal) of
important species to be avoided include breeding, nursing, nesting, spawning, wintering, and
feeding areas. If possible, the proposed site should be located away from critical habitats as well
as other areas of ecological interest such as national preserves, biological stations, or wildlife
management areas. The proposed sites may be assessed with and without critical habitat
restrictions to determine the overall impact of critical habitats. At the proposed site screening
level, each site may be ranked by the overall number of protected or endangered species located
in its host county. At the candidate site screening level, sites may be evaluated based on more
detailed evaluations of the habitat, such as the uniqueness of the habitat within the region and the
amount of the habitat which would be disturbed compared to the total amount of habitat in the
area.
If connection to existing high voltage electrical distribution is planned, then the proposed
transmission corridor should be evaluated. Distance from the proposed site to existing electrical
power corridors or substations should be evaluated. An existing right of way is preferred
compared to areas which would require the clearing of land for new transmission infrastructure.
The proposed transmission corridor is subject to the same assessment of effects to species of
interest as the proposed site.
Wetland disruptions due to operation or construction are to be avoided to the extent practical in
accordance with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands [51]. During the screening
process, wetlands should be excluded from candidate areas. If the exclusion of wetlands is too
restrictive, sites may be screened based on the total acreage of wetlands which would be affected
by construction and operation. If wetlands are present near the candidate site, an evaluation must
be performed to determine what affect if any will occur due to construction-related dewatering.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-27
If a cooling tower is planned for the proposed site, cooling tower drift must also be considered.
Drift is the term for the carryover of liquid water within the evaporated water stream of a cooling
tower. The liquid water may contain water treatment chemicals, excess salt, and other particles
which will be deposited to the environment. Drift can affect terrestrial life and vegetation due to
deposition. Cooling water with high salt content or dissolved solids can exacerbate the
concentration of adulterants present in the liquid water drift. Proposed sites with freshwater
cooling sources are preferred with respect to cooling tower drift.
4.2.4.3 Socioeconomic Criteria
Socioeconomic criteria should be investigated during the siting process and will need to be
addressed as part of the license application in accordance with Regulatory Guide 4.7 [52].
Socioeconomic criteria include land use issues, public infrastructure issues, and environmental
justice issues.
The proposed site of the nuclear reactor should not interfere with current or planned land uses.
Parks, recreational areas, and other public land uses may conflict with the proposed siting and
will require resolution through state and local agencies. Archeological or historical areas are
subject to additional laws and regulations and should be avoided if their presence is known. Land
devoted to specialty crop production may be displaced by the proposed siting which would
require additional investigation. The proposed siting may also result in aesthetic impacts to the
surrounding area which must be assessed.
The suitability of the site with respect to local communities and public infrastructure must also
be assessed. Construction and operation of the proposed nuclear reactor could result in a
disruption to community services such as schools, hospitals, and water or sewage infrastructure.
The number of local and migrating workers attracted by the facility during construction and
operation must be found to not adversely affect the local community nor disproportionately
affect minority or low-income populations.
The candidate sites must be screened for any differences in environmental justice outcomes.
Areas that if developed can result in adverse effects to minority or low-income populations
should be avoided. If a certain site may disproportionately affect the lifestyle or food intake of a
group which would be avoided if a different site was selected, that would be an environmental
justice concern. This screening should take into account the desire of local citizens, who may
embrace the changes brought about by the proposed nuclear reactor.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-28
4.3 Community Involvement
The success of any large infrastructure project begins with the support of the local community. In
order to assess the attitudes of local organizations, the LENOWISCO Planning District
Commission sent out a questionnaire to numerous local stakeholders. This was followed up by
interviews with representatives from each county and the City of Norton.
The industry questionnaire contained a total of twelve questions [53]. The full list of question
and the responses are shown in Appendix A. A summary is provided below.
• All ten respondents stated that they believe energy policies should consider nuclear energy
as one of many energy sources to provide electricity and that they prefer to be engaged and
informed on presently published energy policies and legislation. Ninety percent of those
that responded agreed that they would support additional studies to determine the
feasibility of utilizing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the coalfields of Southwest
Virginia if the new technologies receive approvals by the United States Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
• A number of questions asked what organization would be best qualified to continue public
outreach related to SMRs. The majority (80%) of respondents stated that the
Commonwealth of Virginia’s Department of Virginia Energy is best qualified to inform the
public about presently published energy policies and legislation. Seventy percent of
respondents chose Virginia Energy as the group best qualified to facilitate community
informational meetings related to the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in
the coalfields of Southwest Virginia. In addition to Virginia Energy, there are a number of
other groups that it was suggested be stakeholders in future studies and provide the public
with additional information. These include local economic developers, community
colleges, SWVA Energy R&D Authority, InvestSWVA, Energy DELTA Lab, VNEC, and
VNECA.
• When asked how respondents prefer to be engaged and informed pertaining to the
technological development of Small Modular Reactor(s) in the coalfields of Southwest
Virginia, 50% answered community forums/meetings (held in-person and/or virtually),
40% answered stakeholder panels (held in-person and/or virtually), and 10% answered
community fact sheets (disseminated via email).
• When asked what future topics should be included in subsequent Small Modular Reactor
feasibility reviews, respondents suggested:
– Supply chain opportunities and related workforce development/training needs
– Water use and water quality
– Land use change/compatibility with local comprehensive plans
– Land stability and siting criteria
– On-site storage and management of waste
– Safety/risk management
– Community benefits
– Environmental justice
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-29
– Long term impacts, risks, and benefits
– Public education
– Safety and fuel disposal
• When asked what additional methods of community education and involvement they would
suggest be utilized throughout this process, respondents suggested:
– Community meetings, focus groups, and forums
– Digital media campaign (website and social media, including paid media)
– Public TV or radio spots with information
– Statewide Education Consultants
These responses demonstrate a high degree of engagement and interest in further work and that a
number of decision makers will need to be involved in new projects in the region. Additionally
multiple approaches should be used to reach the members of the community.
During the preparation of this report, representatives from Scott County, Lee County, Wise
County, Dickenson County, and the City of Norton were met with (virtually) to communicate the
major findings of the report and solicit feedback. In general, the representatives were eager to
continue their involvement in future phases of this work. The following bullets summarize the
main points that came from those discussions.
• Many of the representatives expressed interest in receiving the first SMR in their locality.
The tax revenues to the host county are expected to be a significant boon to the local
community. However, it is expected that the localities would be eager to work together.
What benefits one locality, benefits the entire region.
• Many representatives noted a lack of public knowledge regarding nuclear power in their
county (or city). Public outreach campaigns will be necessary in order to reach community
members. Multiple methods of outreach were suggested in order to reach different groups
of people. Some proposed outreach campaigns included youth education (e.g., sessions
education in K-12 schools, boy and girl scout sessions), town hall meetings hosted by
industry experts, and training for local leaders and politicians who would go on to interface
with their constituents.
• Some representatives wanted to know how the plant would be staffed. There was a general
interest in a mixture of an inflow of new workers to the area, employment opportunities for
current residents, and opportunities for residents that pursued higher education and would
be interested in returning to the area for a high paying job where they grew up.
4.4 Factors Affecting Siting
Along with regulatory considerations, there are specific factors that affect the sites proposed for
nuclear plant construction. This section will discuss the three main categories of factors that
affect nuclear siting, and the sub factors within those categories. These categories include
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-30
socioeconomic factors, proximity factors, and safety factors. These factors are collected and used
by the NRC to help define what sites are viable, as well as compare multiple potential sites. The
STAND tool described in Section 4.5 is used to rank potential sites using the subfactors
described in Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.3.
4.4.1 Socioeconomic Factors
Socioeconomic factors include the social acceptance of nuclear power as well as the economic
factors that could affect a nuclear power plant in the siting area. These factors aim to quantify
how the population around the area feels about nuclear power, what policies the local
government has in place regarding nuclear power, and the current power market in the area. The
sub factors affecting socioeconomic factors in reference to nuclear siting are as follows:
• Nuclear Restrictions
• Energy Price
• Net Electricity Imports
• Nuclear Sentiment
• Nuclear Inclusive Policy
• Market Regulation
• Construction Labor Rate
These are discussed in the following subsections.
4.4.1.1 Nuclear Restrictions
Nuclear reactor restrictions at the state level can prevent the construction of new nuclear reactors
and be difficult to overcome. Some restrictions include requirements for approval by state
legislature or the state commission on environmental protection. Other laws such as moratoriums
on nuclear development, requirements for voter approval, or successful demonstration of
technology for waste disposal can take a considerable amount of time and resources to
overcome. These issues affect the ability of a site to be approved by the state it is being proposed
in, regardless of whether NRC approval is granted. Currently no such laws or restrictions are in
place for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
4.4.1.2 Energy Prices
Average energy prices vary throughout the country in accordance with market forces and laws
regarding the mix of energy sources. Populations in areas with high energy prices may be more
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-31
receptive to adding new nuclear generation as a way to lower household electricity prices.
Owner-operators in areas with high energy prices may be more willing to invest in new nuclear
generation.
4.4.1.3 Net Electricity Imports
Depending on existing load profiles, some states are required to import electricity from other
states or countries over the course of the day. States that are currently importing electricity are
more likely to prioritize the development of new electrical generation facilities in order to ensure
self-sufficiency or better control the electrical generation mix in accordance with state energy
mandates.
4.4.1.4 Nuclear Sentiment
Public attitudes toward nuclear power are an issue for many regions that already contain or seek
to develop nuclear power plants. Understanding the sentiment toward nuclear power in the
immediate surrounding area, and the state as whole is important to determine what actions are
needed to ensure public support of the proposed reactor. Community outreach developments can
be a useful tool to help the public better understand nuclear energy, and the benefits a proposed
reactor can bring to the region. The NRC collects information on nuclear sentiment based on
10 years of public polling data. Factors at the individual level (race, gender, age, etc.) as well as
county level factors (partisanship, distance to existing facilities, social vulnerability scores, etc.)
are used in compiling this data into percentiles describing every county in the nation. This
standardized set is used in judging a potential site.
4.4.1.5 Nuclear Inclusive Policy
Policies that aim to reduce the environmental impact of carbon emissions or uphold clean energy
standards can support nuclear development. These policies often include incentives for
generation technologies which frequently include new nuclear energy production. Some states
have enacted policies based on achieving certain percentages of clean energy in the future and, as
long as nuclear energy is not excluded from these policies, nuclear energy can be a viable option
to meet these goals.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-32
4.4.1.6 Market Regulation
Market regulation refers to whether a utility controls the flow of electricity from the generator to
meter or not, depending on if they are regulated or deregulated, respectively. Deregulated
markets consist of multiple energy producers in competition which sell electricity onto the grid at
market prices. A market maker ensures that enough electricity is transmitted to the grid to meet
demand at any time. Regulated markets operate vertically, with a single energy producer
generating and transmitting the energy according to a public regulator. More information on
regulated and deregulated markets can be found in Section 7. Both regulated and deregulated
markets have a complex history of use in the United States. Currently there is a mix of both
regulated and deregulated markets in the US and in local regions. Historically, nuclear power
plants were financed and developed in regulated energy markets, due to the guaranteed rate of
return from the rate payers. Deregulated markets create a greater risk for long term construction
investments due to the fluctuation of electricity prices over time. The market structure is a factor
that needs to be considered by the owner-operator when proposing the business case of nuclear
reactors including financing and expected rate of return. The market structure is predominantly
determined by the siting of the reactor and the proposed grid connections.
4.4.1.7 Construction Labor Rate
This siting factor refers to the five-year average labor rates at the state level and is used to
estimate the potential construction and operating costs of a nuclear facility. This varies from state
to state and is not considered on a county basis. Labor rates affect the amount of financing
necessary for the construction of a nuclear plant.
4.4.2 Proximity Factors
Proximity factors affecting nuclear reactor siting refer to the area around the potential site. These
factors are concerned with facilities or natural features within a certain radius of the planned site.
Some of the siting requirements in this section refer directly to regulations set forth by the NRC
as described in Section 4.2.4. The subfactors affecting the proximity factors are as follows:
• Population
• Operating Nuclear Facilities
• Nuclear Research and Development
• Substations
• Generator Retirement
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-33
• Transportation
• Streamflow
4.4.2.1 Population
As described in Section 4.2.4.1.6, proposed reactors should be sited away from areas with a
population density greater than 500 persons per square mile. This siting factor assesses the
population density of nearby areas as well as the nearest population center of greater than
25,000 people.
4.4.2.2 Operating Nuclear Facilities
This siting factor refers to the distance between the proposed site and an existing nuclear facility.
Communities with existing nuclear power facilities are generally more amenable to the addition
of new nuclear facilities. These communities generally perceive lower risks associated with
nuclear power and have experienced the benefits of the existing nuclear power facility within
their community.
4.4.2.3 Nuclear Research and Development
Access to nearby nuclear research and development can aid in the development of advanced
nuclear facilities. Technical support provided by international labs or universities with research
reactors can be a useful tool in the siting, construction, and maintenance of advanced reactors.
For siting purposes, national labs with robust support for advanced reactors or universities with
active research reactors and/or nuclear programs are considered within a 100-mile radius of the
proposed site as nuclear research and development support.
Efforts spearheaded by the Energy DELTA Lab are underway in Southwest Virginia to create
public and private partnerships that will facilitate the necessary licensing and deployment of
SMR designs. This is further discussed in Section 4.6.
4.4.2.4 Substations
The distance from the proposed site to an electrical substation can have significant monetary
impacts on the proposed reactor. An existing, nearby substation can significantly reduce
construction costs of new transmission lines which can exceed $3 M/mile (see Section 7.1). A
substation and transmission lines with excess amperage capacity may also be desired if the
proposed site will potentially be expanded with additional SMRs following initial construction.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-34
4.4.2.5 Generator Retirement
Retiring fossil plant generation and electrical power facilities provide an opportunity for cost
savings when siting nuclear plants. Reactor construction at a site that is already connected to the
grid with transmission and other infrastructure preinstalled may provide an enticing starting point
for a nuclear plant. The reuse of existing electrical generation infrastructure is referred to as coal-
to-nuclear conversion and is described in Section 7.4. The Kemmerer site in Wyoming is being
pursued by TerraPower, where a demonstration reactor has been proposed at a retired coal plant.
4.4.2.6 Transportation
Access to transportation infrastructure is a factor which can affect the proposed siting. SMR
designs are planned to be pre-built in large modules and shipped to the site for construction
making access to adequate transportation infrastructure important. Large loads will need to be
transported to the site requiring coordination with local departments of transportation and the use
of major roads, railways, or navigable waterways. Access to these modes of transportation is a
necessary concern in site evaluation, especially for advanced SMR designs.
4.4.2.7 Streamflow
Streamflow refers to the availability of sufficient cooling water makeup sources for closed cycle
cooling applications. This siting factor varies between the different designs available for reactors.
Some SMR designs do not require water anywhere in their cooling system and will not require a
freshwater source for cooling operations. For plants that require cooling water sources the siting
tools limit makeup water removal by the power plant to less than 10% of the available flow.
4.4.3 Safety Factors
Safety factors affecting nuclear siting refer to the surrounding area and include how local
industry, nature, and society would incorporate the presence of the proposed nuclear power plant.
Some industries can pose potential hazards if located near nuclear plants, for example large
airports or chemical manufacturing. The local area must support safe evacuation routes in case of
a nuclear emergency. Naturally occurring hazards must also be assessed for the proposed reactor
site, such as earthquake potential due to proximity to fault lines, flooding, and landslide threats.
Most of the siting requirements in this section are set forth directly by the NRC. The subfactors
affecting the safety factors are as follows:
• Social Vulnerability Index
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-35
• Protected Lands
• Hazardous Facilities
• Fault Lines
• Landslide Hazard
• Safe Shutdown Earthquake
• 100 Year Flood
• Open Waters and Wetlands
• Slope
4.4.3.1 Social Vulnerability Index
The social vulnerability index (SVI) is used to determine how well a community can deal with
disasters. Situations like natural disasters, human caused events, and disease outbreaks are
considered for this category. The SVI is measured by the centers for disease control (CDC)
through 15 social factors, including poverty, lack of vehicle access, and crowded housing. These
are analyzed at a county level to determine how well a community could deal with a potential
accident scenario at the local level. A high SVI index number means that an area is more socially
vulnerable and may not be able to adequately respond to potential accident scenarios.
4.4.3.2 Protected Lands
Protected land categories such as public lands, lands with restricted uses, or access restrictions
are excluded from nuclear site selection. The NRC Regulatory Guide 4.7 states that reactor siting
adjacent to protected lands may not be suitable to the local jurisdiction. However, allowances
may be made for certain situations and protected lands do not always mean a potential site is
immediately discarded. Federal land, as an example, has the potential to be used to nuclear
reactor siting, however further proposals will have to be made to use the federal land for this
purpose.
4.4.3.3 Hazardous Facilities
Hazardous facilities refer to any nearby industrial facilities that could have accidents that might
produce “missiles, shock waves, flammable vapor clouds, toxic chemicals, or incendiary
fragments,” according to NRC Regulatory Guide 4.7. These types of industrial facilities are
described in Section 4.2.4.1.4. These facilities should be considered during site evaluation for
their current proximity. These facilities do not rule out nuclear power plant siting as some
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-36
industrial uses, such as chemical processing, require large amounts of readily available local
power and heat to operate. Additional engineering analysis is required to ensure safety when
considering a site near hazardous facilities.
4.4.3.4 Fault Lines
The existence of known geological faults within 200 miles of the site must be considered as
described in Section 4.2.4.1.1. Earthquakes are an environmental hazard which must be
evaluated by all reactor designs, due to the earthquake’s ability to disrupt normal equipment
operation. Proposed reactor siting near geological faults increases the geological characterization
requirements and engineering controls required for design approval.
4.4.3.5 Landslide Hazard
Proposed siting should be avoided for areas with a moderate to high risk of landslide or sinkhole
activity as determined by the USGS. These hazards are mitigated by siting of the proposed
reactor in areas with suitable foundation conditions as described in Section 4.2.4.1.1. Formal
onsite geology inspections and characterization are required prior to licensing, but excess costs
can be avoided with proper site selection.
4.4.3.6 Safe Shutdown Earthquake
Regional areas which can be subjected to earthquakes resulting in peak ground acceleration of
greater than 0.3 g should be avoided as described in Section 4.2.4.1.1. This guidance is based on
currently operating large light water reactor technology. Some SMR designs are more resilient to
earthquakes and may be sited in areas with approximately 0.5 peak ground acceleration.
Earthquake mitigating design features of SMRs include smaller piping systems, passive safety
systems, underground installations, and improved seismic isolation.
4.4.3.7 100-Year Flood
100-year floodplains are assessed to ensure that the proposed site in not located within
floodplains as described in Section 4.2.4.1.3. Other flooding risks will need to be assessed for the
candidate site further in the process.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-37
4.4.3.8 Open Waters and Wetlands
This siting criteria is concerned with avoiding sensitive and protected ecological areas as
described in Section 4.2.4.2. This includes bodies of water such as drinking water sources,
recreational areas, or navigable waterways. Protected land such as wetlands are also included.
Wetlands and protected waters should be heavily discouraged from potential site selection in
order to avoid environmental and ecological disruption as well as legal siting challenges.
4.4.3.9 Slope
Areas with slopes in excess of 12% can be costly to develop and are not recommended for
reactor siting based on current large LWR designs. This value can be relaxed for SMR siting as
the footprint for these plants is smaller. However, areas with an excessive slope may still result
in additional construction costs for SMRs during site preparation.
4.5 Results from STAND
The Siting Tool for Advanced Nuclear Development (STAND) is used to identify, compare, and
analyze potential sites for nuclear plant development. STAND was developed by the National
Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC), which is a Department of Energy program lead by Idaho
National Laboratory in conjunction with the University of Michigan, Oak Ridge National Lab,
and Argonne National Lab. This tool is used to identify and examine potential nuclear sites,
while providing comparisons between potential sites. STAND is not a replacement for a rigorous
analysis of candidate areas and proposed sites during the siting process but does provide an
efficient way to analyze multiple sites for initial suitability. STAND aggregates data from many
sources, including socioeconomic sources like the US Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
and the EIA, safety sources like the NRC, the CDC, and EPRI, and geographical and geological
sources like the USGS, the EPA, and the Oak Ridge Siting Analysis for Power Generation
Expansion (OR-SAGE) tool. The user may determine what siting factors are most important to
site decision-making and weight them accordingly. This weighting is used along with the data
collected from the various sources, to give each location a relative value. The proposed sites are
then ranked based on this value. The STAND tool uses attribute relevance and range significance
as two separate variables for ranking calculations.
Attribute relevance refers to the importance of each attribute in the choice of an optimal site. If
the optimal site is to be contained in low population area, then the significance of surrounding
population should be set to high or very high. This will lead to it population density being a more
heavily weighted factor for the siting evaluation. Setting any attribute to not relevant removes
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-38
them from consideration in site ranking. Siting factors were only rated as not relevant when all of
the analyzed sites were not affected by the criteria. For example, in this analysis, this occurred
when all sites were identified as being outside of the 200 mile range for capable tectonic
structures.
Range significance refers to how the sites relate to each other for each attribute. The best and
worst measures from all considered sites is listed, as well as the difference between them. The
user then selects how significant the difference between the best and worst measurement is to the
siting process. For example, a measure of proximity to operating nuclear facilities is siting factor
which can affect the surrounding community’s sentiment. However, if the surrounding
community is sparse or non-existent there may be no significant difference between a 3-mile
distance and an 80-mile distance. Three methods may remove a range from the consideration in
site ranking; setting the attribute to not relevant, the best and worst site measures are equal, or
the best and worst site measures are outside of the range of consideration.
The STAND tool was used to evaluate proposed sites in the LENOWISCO ROI. Figure 4-20
shows a map of the LENOWISCO sites. Additional sites from outside the LENOWISCO region
were also evaluated to provide a comparison against sites which have already been proposed for
reactor siting. Some site selection factors did not affect the site selection results. For example, all
of the evaluated sites were located in states without nuclear construction bans or moratoriums.
This resulted in the nuclear restrictions siting factor (Section 4.4.1.1) having no effect on site
rankings. Likewise, all the evaluated sites were located away from large population centers and
fault lines. These factors were removed from the site comparison analysis.
Five sites were selected for comparison with the proposed LENOWISCO sites:
• AEP’s Clinch River Coal Station in Virginia
• TVA’s Clinch River Nuclear Site in Tennessee
• The North Anna Nuclear Plant in Virginia
• TVA’s Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee
• The Natrium Demonstration Site in Wyoming
TVA’s Clinch River Nuclear Site is a proposed site that has been granted an Early Site Permit
(ESP) by the NRC for two or more small modular reactors. It is located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee
at the former location of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project. This site provides a valuable
comparison to LENOWISCO as it represents an SMR site that has already been accepted by the
NRC.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-39
The North Anna Nuclear Generating Station in Virginia provides a comparison between an
existing nuclear power plant and the proposed sites in the LENOWISCO ROI. The two currently
operating reactors at North Anna are large LWRs and require much more infrastructure including
land and cooling water than a SMR site would require. Additionally, North Anna is currently in
possession of an approved Combined Construction and Operating License for a 3
rd
large LWR.
Due to these factors the North Anna site ranks highly during STAND evaluations. North Anna
exceeds the siting requirements of SMRs which represents a valuable comparison point to the
proposed sites in the LENOWISCO ROI.
The TVA Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee and the AEP Clinch River Coal Station in Virginia
represent coal-to-nuclear transition sites. Reuse of retired coal plant infrastructure can result in
significant reactor construction savings which are further discussed in Section 7.4. AEP’s Clinch
River Coal Station has transitioned two units to natural gas fired operation and retired a third
unit. AEP’s Clinch River Coal Station provides an example of coal-to-nuclear transition site in
the Southwest Virginia region near the LENOWISCO planning district. TVA’s Kingston Fossil
Plant represents a coal-to-nuclear transition in the same region as TVA’s Clinch River Nuclear
site. Taken together, they provide a comparison against the proposed brownfield sites in the
LENOWISCO region.
The Natrium Demonstration Site in Wyoming provides a representative example of an advanced
reactor site that is commensurate with the proposed LENOWISCO sites. The Natrium
Demonstration Site is to be built on a retiring coal plant. While the Natrium site is similar to the
proposed LENOWISCO sites, it is located in a different area of the country which allows for a
comparison with Southwest Virginia.
The STAND tool was used for three different evaluations. A baseline evaluationwhere all site
selection factors discussed in Section 4.4 were given an equal, medium weighting. The factors
were then adjusted to be representative of the needs of a microreactor. Finally the factors were
adjusted to represent the needs of a 300 MWe SMR.
In each of these evaluations, the LENOWISCO sites were averaged together to compared with
the sites outside of LENOWISCO. This allows for an understanding of how the LENOWISCO
ROI compares with approved SMR sites, conversion sites from coal to nuclear, and current
nuclear power plants. In all of the evaluations, the LENOWISCO sites showed that they are
capable sites for further review in the pursuit of nuclear plants. The LENOWISCO sites differed
in their viability when compared using microreactor and 300 MWe SMR adjustments, but all
sites remained viable for further review.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-40
Figure 4-20 Map of the LENOWISCO ROI sites
4.5.1 Baseline Analysis
For the purpose of this section, all sites were evaluated by setting all factors available in the
STAND tool to medium. This allows for each factor to have an even field of influence on the
relative value of the site. This resulted in a suitability comparison between the LENOWISCO
ROI and the external sites based on relative value score. The relative value score for each site is
a composite of their scores for safety, proximity, and socioeconomic factors. These scores are
affected by the relevance and range significance values which are selected for the case. For the
baseline case where all attributes were set to medium, Figure 4-21 shows the relative values. The
green bars correspond to the socioeconomic factors described in Section 4.4.1. The black bars
correspond to the proximity factors described in Section 4.4.2. The blue bars correspond to the
safety factors described in Section 4.4.3.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-41
Figure 4-21 The Contribution of Each Primary Objectives Score to the Comparison of the Sites
Among the siting factors modeled, some were marked as irrelevant due to each modeled site
having results which were either the same or outside of the bounds of consideration. The
irrelevant factors were nuclear restrictions, nuclear inclusive policy, fault lines, safe shutdown
earthquake, 100-year flood, and population.
This analysis ranks the Clinch River Nuclear Site (TVA), North Anna Nuclear Generating
Station (Dominion Energy), and Kingston Fossil Plant (TVA) as the first three positions on this
list. However, those comparison areas are already constructed power plants with existing
infrastructure and known suitability. This does not indicate that the LENOWISCO ROI is
unacceptable or not within consideration. The STAND tool acquires information on the current
state of the location and its surroundings from multiple sources, so a developed site, in many
cases, is expected to score higher than a proposed undeveloped site.
The LENOWISCO ROI scores favorably compared to the proposed Natrium demonstration site.
The Natrium demonstration site is scheduled to apply for a construction permit in 2023. This is
an indication that the LENOWISCO ROI is generally suitable for nuclear development compared
to other advanced reactor sites.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-42
4.5.2 Microreactor Analysis
The STAND analysis was also performed to evaluate proposed microreactors. Due to the small
size of the reactor and plant, microreactors can employ more effective safety measures on
smaller scales. Seismic and other natural hazard phenomena are much less of a concern for
microreactors compared to conventional light water reactors if an issue at all [54]. Microreactors
may be suitable for deployment in populated areas as a local energy source due to their reduced
size and ability to be housed underground with a small site footprint and limited employees.
These reactors may also be placed in remote locations. This could lead to changes in siting
requirements for microreactors compared to conventional reactors and other SMRs.
The siting attributes relevance and range significance in the STAND tool were modified to
represent microreactor siting as shown in Figure 4-22. These changes resulted in the change to
the LNENOWISCO ROI’s comparison of relative value with the comparison sites in Figure
4-23.
Figure 4-22 Attribute Relevance – Range Significance Matrix for Microreactor Analysis
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-43
Figure 4-23 The Contribution of Each Primary Objectives Score to the Comparison of the Sites for
Microreactors
The LENOWISCO ROI scores similarly with respect to microreactor siting compared to the
baseline case. It is noted that the Project Intersection site represents a potential option for a
microreactor. Project Intersection (described in Section 4.1.1.7) is located in an area with
residential and commercial energy demands in the direct vicinity which represent potential
challenges to the Emergency Planning Zone as described in Section 4.2.4.1.7. The City of
Norton approaches the population density limit of 500 persons/square mile which would
preclude LWR siting. A microreactor may be able to be licensed in spite of the nearby
population, although the regulatory path forward is unclear. A microreactor would take up less
than 1% of the area of other reactor types, allowing for the existing site to include industrial
electricity users.
All sites within the LENOWISCO ROI increased in their relative site value compared to the
baseline case. This indicates that a microreactor is a viable option for all of the proposed sites
within the LENOWISCO ROI.
4.5.3 300 MWe SMR Analysis
The STAND analysis was also performed to evaluate proposed 300 MWe SMRs. Larger SMR
designs, like the BWRX-300, have siting requirements which are closer to those of conventional
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-44
large LWRs, on a smaller scale. SMR plants at the 300 MWe scale will require larger amounts of
land, with a greater emphasis on proximity and safety of the surrounding area and industries.
These plants will also require emergency planning zones and low population zones preventing
siting in population centers as envisioned for microreactors. A 300 MWe SMR will have higher
construction costs and supply a much larger amount of electricity than a microreactor.
Consequently a 300 MWe SMR will need to have a stronger business case for future demand of
electricity than a microreactor. Substation proximity, labor rate, and the current energy price are
more heavily weighted factors in determining the viability of the proposed site.
The attributes relevance and range significance in the STAND tool were modified to represent
300 MWe SMR siting as shown in Figure 4-24. These changes resulted in the change to the
LNENOWISCO ROI’s comparison of relative value with the comparison sites in Figure 4-25.
Figure 4-24 Attribute Relevance – Range Significance Matrix for Larger SMRs Analysis
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-45
Figure 4-25 The Contribution of Each Primary Objectives Score to the Comparison of the Sites for
Larger SMRs
The relative values from the baseline evaluation and the 300 MWe SMR evaluation, shows very
little change in the relative scoring of the LENOWISCO region and comparison sites. The
similarity between scores for the LENOWISCO region in both microreactor and 300 MWe SMR
evaluations is expected as the evaluated sites are in similar geographic areas, with similar
population densities. The suggested LENOWISCO sites score well against established nuclear
sites and proposed nuclear sites, especially the Planned Natrium Site. This indicates that the
suggested LENOWISCO sites are options for increased characterization and nuclear
development.
4.6 LENOWISCO Differentiators
As illustrated in Figure 4-21, Figure 4-23, and Figure 4-25, the results from the STAND
evaluation show that example sites in the LENOWISCO ROI compare favorably to sites that
have already been identified for new nuclear projects (and in the case of TVA’s Clinch River
Nuclear site already qualified). This indicates that LENOWISCO would have numerous sites that
are feasible for nuclear reactors and each of the example sites considered as part of this
evaluation are worthy of further consideration. In itself, the number of sites that are favorable for
deployment is a significant differentiator for the LENOWISCO region.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-46
Although ranking more favorably in safety and socioeconomic considerations, the example
LENOWISCO sites rank slightly less favorably with respect to proximity.
The following individual components of the STAND socioeconomic considerations have
LENOWISCO-specific implications:
• Energy Prices: The STAND tool indicates that energy prices in LENOWISCO are low
compared to other locations. Therefore, it is expected that an emphasis on future energy
consumption and resulting prices should be considered when evaluating LENOWISCO for
SMR siting. Specifically, the projected growth of data centers in the region should be
emphasized when considering energy pricing and comparison of LENOWISCO sites to
other potential sites.
• Net Electricity Imports: The STAND tool indicates that the LENOWISCO sites imports
100% of their electricity. Because this is also indicated to be the case at the Virginia City
Site, this may indicate that the tool does not have sufficient resolution. Regardless, the lack
of generating capacity within LENOWISCO should be considered a positive differentiator,
i.e., a feature making LENOWISCO more attractive as a location for SMRs.
• Nuclear Sentiment: The STAND results indicate that LENOWISCO scores relatively low
on nuclear sentiment (40 on a scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being the most amenable to siting
a nuclear power plant in the region of interest). As discussed in Section 4.4.1.4, this
ranking is based on polling performed by the NRC and represents a 10-year average.
Future actions in support of SMR siting could include more detailed analysis of the raw
polling data and, if warranted, efforts to increase public acceptance of nuclear in
LENOWISCO. This is further discussed in Section 4.3.
The following individual components of the STAND proximity considerations have
LENOWISCO-specific implications:
• Nuclear Research and Development: There are no nuclear research and development
facilities within 100 miles of LENOWISCO. Therefore, STAND ranks LENOWISCO low
in this metric. However, there are multiple sites that are just outside of this distance. Oak
Ridge is approximately 120 miles away. Virginia Polytechnical Institute is just over 100
miles away. The attractiveness of LENOWISCO per this metric would be improved if the
Energy DELTA Lab were included as a nuclear research and development organization in
the screening process. The Energy DELTA (Discovery, Education, Learning & Technology
Accelerator) Lab is a collaborative effort by the Virginia Department of Energy, the
Southwest Virginia Energy Research and Development Authority and its business
development partner InvestSWVA. DELTA Lab’s lead private industry partners include
Appalachian Power (discussed in Section 7.3.1) and Dominion Energy Virginia (discussed
in Section 7.3.2). It is an energy testbed located in Southwest Virginia focused on
leveraging previously-mined land as a proving ground for the commercialization and
deployment of innovative energy technologies. The Energy DELTA Lab has the capacity
to bring together the region’s utilities, the SMR vendors, and their supply-chain
manufacturers in public and private partnerships to facilitate the necessary licensing and
deployment of SMR designs. The Energy DELTA is a signficant differentiator for the
LENOWISCO ROI because it has the potential to support any research and development
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
4-47
necessary to site SMRs in the region. It also serves as a facilitator for the numerous
partnerships that will be needed in order to ensure the project’s success. The growth of the
DELTA Lab will result in significant proximity benefits for the LENOWISCO ROI which
are not captured by the current STAND analysis.
• Substations: Although the LENOWISCO sites generally compare favorably with other
locations with respect to the distance to substations, some sites scored lower on this metric.
Specifically, the Bullit, Mineral Gap, and Lee County sites scored low by this metric.
• Generator Retirement: The STAND database indicates that none of the LENOWISCO sites
are within 20 miles of a retiring coal plant, thus ranking them low in this regard. However,
the advantages of being near a retiring coal plant are not likely to be different from being
near a recently retired coal plant (AEP’s Clinch River site) or near a hybrid energy center
that includes coal in the fuel mix (Virginia City site).
• Transportation: The STAND database indicates that none of the LENOWISCO sites are, on
average, about 30 miles away from a major transportation route. This obviously does not
include the many active or semi-active rail lines that have serviced the sites under
consideration. In further assessments of specific sites, additional work to include existing
rail lines should be considered.
The following individual components of the STAND safety considerations have LENOWISCO-
specific implications:
• Hazardous Facilities: There is significant differentiation among the LENOWISCO sites
with respect to the proximity of hazardous facilities. When further site refinement is
desired, identification of these facilities will be necessary.
• Protected Lands: There is significant differentiation among the LENOWISCO sites with
respect to the proximity to protected lands. When further site refinement is desired,
identification of these areas will be necessary.
Overall, the results of the STAND analyses indicate that deployment of SMRs to LENOWISCO
is quite feasible and compares well with deployments already planned for outside of the
LENOWISCO ROI. Further, there are several factors not accounted for by the STAND tool
which make the LENOWISCO ROI more desirable. These include, among others, the presence
of the Energy DELTA Lab, the human exertise of the region, the numerous sources of cooling
water, the potential for load growth, the presence of numerous brownfield sites, and existing
right of way to transmission infrastructure. Within LENOWISCO, there are many potential sites,
which would favor multiple deployments. This is an advantage of LENOWISCO that is not fully
captured by the tool.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
5-1
5 GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR NUCLEAR
The following subsections provide a description of the relevant legislation that can provide
government incentives for a nuclear project in LENOWISCO.
5.1 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
In 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the “bipartisan
infrastructure bill” was passed containing several types of investments in the nuclear power
industry [55]. Funding has been allotted to keep currently operating plants open and for the
DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP). These programs would not be useful
to future nuclear projects in LENOWISCO. The third major provision related to nuclear power
mandates that at least one of the four newly created clean hydrogen hubs have hydrogen that is
produced by nuclear power. If hydrogen production were to be considered for LENOWISCO
then this funding could be pursued.
Section 40321, Infrastructure Planning for Micro and Small Nuclear Reactors, provides funding
for feasibility studies for the purpose of identifying suitable locations for the deployment of
microreactors, small modular reactors, and advanced nuclear reactors in isolated communities.
The term isolated community was previously defined in Section 8011(a) of the Energy Act of
2020 (42 U.S.C. 17392(a) [56]). An isolated community is defined as a community that is
powered by a stand-alone electric generation and distribution system without the economic and
reliability benefits of connection to a regional electric grid. This provision likely disqualifies
LENOWISCO. This funding is distinct from the ARDP as 50% of this budget must be spent
outside of the national labs.
Section 40342 pertains to clean energy demonstration programs on current and former mine land.
Under this section advanced nuclear projects are considered clean energy projects.
LENOWISCO certainly applies as having mine land. Two of the five projects funded under this
section are mandated to be solar projects. Competition for the other three projects will be in part
based on job creation both directly at the clean energy site and created in the vicinity of the
project. When applying for this funding, LENOWISCO should stress the economic development
expected as a result of the industry partners brought to the region. In total, $500 million is
allocated for projects in the fiscal years of 2022 through 2026.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
5-2
5.2 Inflation Reduction Act
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in August 2022, contains numerous benefits that
could be applicable to nuclear projects in LENOWISCO [57]. Several aspects of this legislation
are discussed below.
The existing Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) were extended
through the end of 2024. After 2024, they are being replaced by technology neutral emissions
based credits which can be applied to nuclear projects [58]. A project must choose between the
PTC and the ITC (both cannot be captured on the same project). The PTC (as part of IRA
provision 45Y) provides an inflation adjusted $25/MWh in tax credits for every MWh of power
produced by a nuclear plant. The IRA (as part of IRA provision 48E) provides 30% of the capital
cost for a nuclear plant back in tax credits. Both the PTC and the IRA provide an additional 10%
booster for siting in energy communities (which LENOWISCO certainly qualifies as) and
another additional 10% booster for use of domestic content. Domestic content is broken into two
categories (1) iron and steel products and (2) manufactured products. To qualify for use of
domestic content, it is understood that 100% of any iron/steel products must be produced in the
United States and 40% of the total cost of all manufactured products that are components of the
facility must be produced in the United States. When selecting a plant vendor, this condition
should be taken into account. If both boosters are captured, the total benefit of the ITC is 50% of
capital cost and the PTC is $30/MWh. It is expected that NuScale will receive nearly $2.8 billion
in funds from the IRA (through the ITC) for the 462-MWe Carbon-Free Power Project (CFPP) at
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) [59].
The IRA also provides $40 billion in loan authority to guarantee loans for innovative clean
energy projects. The Inflation Reduction Act provides the Department of Energy Loan Programs
Office with $40 billion in loan authority supported by $3.6 billion in credit subsidy for loan
guarantees under section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act for innovative clean energy
technologies, including renewable energy systems, carbon capture, nuclear energy, and critical
minerals processing, manufacturing, and recycling.
The Hydrogen Production Tax Credit (part of the IRA) is eligible for direct pay meaning that
these tax benefits can be received in the form of direct payments. The credit is for hydrogen
facilities placed in service before January 1, 2033, for their first 10 years in service. The credit
value is for $0.60/kg of hydrogen produced multiplied by an applicable percentage. The
applicable percentage ranges from 20% to 100% depending on lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions. The credit value of $0.60/kg is adjusted for inflation. Additionally, there is a bonus
credit amount of up to five times the base credit if the facility meets prevailing wage and
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
5-3
registered apprenticeship requirements. Initial guidance on the labor provisions is available from
the federal register [60].
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also included $9.5 billion for clean hydrogen initiatives
including $8 billion for regional clean hydrogen hubs
5.3 Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization Program
Congress has appropriated funding to the Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization
(AMLER) Program on an annual basis since 2016 [61]. In FY2023, VA was allotted $11.739
million. Projects in the state of Virginia can be proposed through Virginia Energy [62]. In 2020,
the largest grant of $5.5 Million was received by the City of Norton for Project Intersection
Phase IV. This project has received funding in other fiscal years as well. It is possible and likely
that the nuclear project could receive several million dollars from this project if certain features
of the selected site qualify as abandoned mine land.
5.4 Opportunity Zones
The opportunity zone program is a federal program that was created by Congress as part of the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). The tax incentive offers three benefits; tax deferral, tax reduction
through long-term investment, and exclusion of certain capital gains tax. Aspects of the original
legislation are expected to expire December 31, 2026. This opportunity should be re-examined
when the investment timeline is better understood. However, this could be seen as an advantage
for certain sites that fall within zones as they are currently defined.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
5-4
Figure 5-1 Opportunity Zones (Grey Shaded Regions) in LENOWISCO [63]
5.5 Tobacco Region Opportunity Fund
The Tobacco Region Opportunity Fund (TROF) provides funding for economic development
projects in GO Virginia Region One. The award has a maximum value of $3 million dollars.
Funds are delivered at the front end and can be used for site development, access roads, and
infrastructure expansion that would reduce the cost of acquiring and developing sites [64]. It is
likely that a portion of this funding could be available to either the nuclear plant or the co-located
business(es).
5.6 Commonwealth Opportunity Fund
The Commonwealth Opportunity Fund is a “deal closing” fund administered by the virginia
Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) and approved by the Governor. The goal of the
fund is to help secure projects in Virginia that are receiving competition from outside the state.
Given the focus of this project on co-location of nuclear and other projects on specific sites
within LENOWISCO ROI, it is likely that this funding could be used to secure the co-located
energy consumer but not the nuclear plant itself. Further, several other requirements of this
funding pool likely make the nuclear plant not an ideal fit [65].
• Fifty One Percent (51%) or more of the facility’s revenue must be generated outside the
Commonwealth. This is not the objective of the nuclear plant and thus would be a
disqualifying criteria.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
5-5
• The project must also bring in 50 new jobs and $5 million capital investment or 25 new
jobs and $100 million capital investment. These targets are possible for some but not all
plant designs under consideration.
This fund is not a likely source for the nuclear plant at LENOWISCO because it is intended for
projects for which there is competition between VA and another state and it is for projects where
the revenue is generated outside of the state.
5.7 LENOWISCO Differentiators
Several pieces of federal legislation were reviewed to determine their applicability to
LENOWISCO’s project. The following aspects of these legislation could be useful.
• Section 40342 of the IIJA provides a pool of $500 million for clean energy demonstration
programs on current and former mine land that will be allocated for projects in the fiscal
years of 2022 through 2026. LENOWISCO certainly qualifies for this funding pool.
• The Inflation Reduction Act provides the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax
Credit (ITC) one of which may be selected for the LENOWISCO site. It is likely that the
ITC would be chosen over the PTC because the nuclear projects have not yet been built.
LENOWISCO is well positioned to access these funds, because one of the two 10%
boosters applies for siting in energy communities (which LENOWISCO certainly qualifies
as). Along with the other 10% booster that can be captured if enough of the components of
the project are manufactured domestically, LENOWISCO can take full advantage of the
funds available. With the boosters, the IRA provides 50% of the capital cost for a plant
back in tax credits. Further, the IRA also provides $40 billion in loan guarantees.
• The Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization Program (AMLER) could provide
several million dollars in funding depending on the site that is selected. In FY2023, VA
was allotted $11.739 million of this funding. In years past some of this funding has been
used at Project Intersection.
• Although the current version of the Opportunity Zones funding will most likely expire
before it can be fully utilized, it may be available to certain sites if it is renewed.
• The Tobacco Region Opportunity Fund may provide funding to nuclear plant or the co-
located business(es).
When considering what public funding may be available, LENOWISCO must first determine if it
is more advantageous to take advantage of the IRA’s PTC or ITC. The other funding sources
may provide some beneficial contributions but are likely to be only a small fraction of the
funding the IRA can provide.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
6-1
6 USE OF NUCLEAR POWER FOR DEDICATED NEW FACILITIES
Nuclear power has several advantages when compared to other generation technologies that
make it an ideal fit for some of the proposed new facilities.
6.1 Energy Production and Utilization
Electrical generation and consumption are measured in units of watts, often in terms of kilowatts
(1,000 watts), megawatts (1 million watts), and gigawatts (1 billion watts). Watts are units of
power expressed in terms of energy per time, also known as an instantaneous rate. When
discussing electrical power on a grid-scale using units of watts is often convenient because the
supply and demand of electricity must be in balance.
When discussing a particular generator or consumer of electricity, units of watt-hours (energy)
per time period are often used instead (see Equation [3]). For example, residential or commercial
billing is often performed based on kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity consumed during the
billing cycle. This is convenient because the consumption or generation of electricity may not be
the same for all periods of the day. For example, during the summer a building’s air conditioner
may be consuming much more electricity during the afternoon then it does in the evening. The
air conditioner itself may be turning on and off altering the building’s consumption of electricity
minute by minute. The outside temperature may affect the number of minutes each hour the air
conditioner is running, altering the building’s consumption of electricity hour by hour.
(
)
=
(
)
()
[3]
Because electrical generation and consumption is described over 9 orders of magnitude between
watts and gigawatts, it can be helpful to benchmark electrical capacity in terms of more familiar
scales.
At the residential scale, the average US home uses approximately 10.5 MWh each year. This
equates to approximately 875 kWh each month, or approximately 1.2 kW continuously. A
hairdryer or a 2 ton air conditioner each require between 1 and 2 kW while running. Hyperscale
data centers have power requirements between 30 and 300 MWe.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
6-2
At the utility scale, in 2021 Kentucky Utilities Co provided 667,000 MWh to VA (primarily in
the LENOWISCO region, and approximately 18,140,000 MWh to their total customer base [66].
This results in a yearly average generation capacity of 76 MWe in VA and 2,070 MWe total.
At the grid scale, the PJM Interconnection is forecasting peak Summer 2023 load demand to be
149,059 MWe for their service territory [67].
The peak and average consumption of electricity by a load should be considered when
determining the suitability of an electrical generator to supply the load. If the load is connected
to a large power grid, the effect of load changes is reduced. If the load is connected directly to
the generator, or within a microgrid, load changes can require the generator to change power or
voltage to ensure electrical system stability.
Generators and loads can also be described by capacity factor. The capacity factor is the percent
of electrical generation or consumption compared to the maximum over a period of time. For
example, if a nuclear power plant has a nameplate capacity of 100 MWe over a 1 day period it
would be expected to provide 2,400 MWh of power (per Equation [3]). If the power plant only
generated 2,200 MWh of power during the day, it would have exhibited a capacity factor of
91.6% (per Equation [4]).
(
%
)
=
(
)
/ ()
[4]
The power production history, load profile, or capacity factor of a generation source must
accommodate the needs of the load. The 2021 yearly average capacity factor for various methods
of electrical generation are included in Table 6-1. Nuclear power plants typically operate reliably
at full power for extended durations. The currently operating fleet of nuclear power plants
shutdown, producing no electrical output, every 18 to 24 months for a period of a few weeks to
refuel the core and perform maintenance. These maintenance outages result in an annual average
capacity factor of >90%. During these periods of maintenance supplied loads will require power
from the wider electrical grid or temporary electrical generators
*
.
*
One example is diesel generators.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
6-3
Table 6-1 2021 Average Annual Capacity Factors [68]
Generation Class Capacity Factor
Hydroelectric 37.4%
Nuclear 92.6%
Photovoltaic Solar 24.8%
Thermal Solar 23.1%
Wind 36.1%
6.2 Data Centers
One of the primary potential customers of interest for nuclear power projects in LENOWISCO
are data centers. Northern Virginia has over 13 million square feet of data center space requiring
more than a gigawatt of power. According to the Loudon County Economic Development
Authority, over 70% of the world’s internet traffic passes through Northern Virginia each day
[69]. The state of Virginia has heavily invested in data centers to promote this growth including
sales tax exemptions and construction employment tax credits. About 70% of Virginia’s
datacenters are in Northern VA. In order to promote this growth in other areas of the state,
Project Oasis (Reference [69]) specifically looked at the challenges and opportunities associated
with building these projects in Southwestern Virginia. It provides several benchmarks for the
relative sizes of data centers which are shown in Table 6-2. In general, from this study it can be
assumed that there is a general power requirement of 1 MWe per 7,000-10,000 ft
2
of facility
space.
Data centers are a particularly good match for nuclear power plants because they have a constant
baseload power requirement and nuclear plants provide baseload power. Renewable energy
sources are intermittent generators and there are unplanned or cyclic periods of time where they
do not produce electricity. As a result, a data center powered by renewables would require an
alternate energy supply or a large energy storage solution to supply continuous power during
time periods of low renewable generation. Fossil fuels, in addition to emitting greenhouse gases,
are subject to fluctuating fuel prices. Nuclear plants stand apart as an energy source that provides
a constant amount of energy at a constant price. Nuclear plants do have periodic outages, but
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
6-4
these are typically planned and relatively brief (as shown in Table 6-1, nuclear has a capacity
factor of >90%).
Data centers are a particularly good match for sites in the LENOWISCO ROI because of the
ample supply of 51°F mine water available at many sites. This water supply can be used to cool
the servers or to make the nuclear power plant more energy efficient.
Table 6-2 Relative Size of Data Centers
Size Size (ft
2
)
Power
Requirement
(MWe)
Hyper 350,000 30-300
Model* 250,000 36
Large 100,000-200,000 10-50
Small <100,000 -
Micro 10 -
*This model was carried through to example scenarios used
throughout the Oasis report.
6.3 Hydrogen Generation
Hydrogen generation is considered a technologically compatible technology with nuclear power.
The high operating temperatures of nuclear power plants (>500°F and up to 1600°F for some
advanced reactor designs) provide an excellent heat source for the efficient production of
hydrogen. At these high temperatures, hydrogen can be formed more efficiently making it less
expensive to produce. Hydrogen is transported in gas lines, although it is noted that some of
these may need to be refurbished to accommodate hydrogen transport (the IRA provides funding
for such projects). LENOWISCO’s close proximity to existing gas lines may make them ideal
sites for hydrogen production.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
6-5
More generally, nuclear is an excellent source of nonintermittent process heat. Around the world,
nuclear is being actively considered for heat to be used for hydrogen generation, chemical
manufacturing, desalination, and district heating in addition to electricity generation.
6.4 Industrial Park
Low wholesale electricity prices can be an attractive way to incentivize new business
development and investment in a region. Behind the meter industrial parks would perform
synergistically with nuclear power plants to allow for reliable and affordable power, and district
heating, if desired. Locating the nuclear power plant behind the meter of an industrial park would
reduce transmission costs and line losses, potentially resulting in lower electricity prices for the
businesses, and higher sales prices for the generator than would normally be available.
Once constructed, nuclear power plants offer benefits with respect to energy cost stability.
Nuclear plants are characterized as having significant fuel reserves on site (on the order of years)
compared to coal plants which may have weeks of fuel reserves or natural gas plants which
require continuous resupply from pipelines. These fuel reserves minimize interruptions to
electrical generation associated with disruptions from weather, supply chain, and other external
factors. The cost to generate electricity via nuclear power is also relatively insensitive to the
price of fuel compared to coal or natural gas powered generators. For example, doubling the
price of uranium is reported to increase the cost of generation by only 10% [70]. These factors
result in high confidence in the projected future cost of generation and may allow for long-term
contracts for fixed rate power production.
In contrast to the low price of nuclear fuel, the levelized cost of electricity generation at nuclear
facilities is dominated by the initial capital costs of power plant construction. Recent nuclear
deployment in the United States has been characterized by cost overruns and schedule delays
associated with construction. SMR vendors are proposing to address these issues with factory
manufactured components and onsite assembly. To date, no SMR vendors have placed an SMR
in service, so uncertainty in construction costs and schedule remains a concern.
Attracting business development prior to reactor operation may be difficult due to these
uncertainties. For example, in January of 2023 NuScale increased their target price point of
power produced from a proposed site from a 2016 estimate of $55/MWh to $89/MWh [71]. This
increase was primarily driven by an increase in projected construction costs from $5.3 billion to
$9.3 billion. The increase is driven by increased costs of construction commodities such as
piping, steel, and cable as well as higher interest rates.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
6-6
Once constructed, the reactor will benefit from low fuel costs and high availability which will
make co-located industrial uses financially attractive options. It may be difficult to broker
commitments between a reactor owner/operator and industrial customers such that each entity is
willing to commit to the long term construction project. Instead, it may be easier to deploy a
reactor with a standalone business case such as electrical sales to the grid detailed in Section 7
which can then attract industrial users once constructed.
6.5 LENOWISCO Differentiators
LENOWISCO is proposing the construction of a Small Modular Reactor to provide power to
new developments. This co-location arrangement provides many benefits. Primarily, co-location
provides a guaranteed wholesale power rate for the development and a guaranteed customer for
the power plant. Cutting out transmission costs and losses may result in a lower price for
customer and a higher price for the plant.
Nuclear is well suited for a customer like a data center where the need for power is constant.
This is because nuclear plants are designed to operate at full power continuously for an extended
period of time (generally 18-24 months) and then are refueled for a short period (generally
several weeks). The length (or existence because some plants do not require this) of the refueling
window is dependent on the plant design. LENOWISCO’s access to mine water also makes it an
ideal location for future data center projects that require cooling water.
Nuclear is also well suited to provide process heat for industrial parks or chemical
manufacturing, one example of which is hydrogen production. Although hydrogen production is
not currently a technology being evaluated specifically by this study, it is worth noting due to the
federal funding being devoted to hydrogen production and the proximity of natural gas lines to
the LENOWISCO region, which could be used to transport hydrogen once it is produced.
One noteworthy drawback of co-location is shared commercial vulnerability. If one of the
businesses fails, the other will need to find a new partner. As it relates to the nuclear plant, if the
data center or other industrial partner fails, the plant will need to begin supplying to the grid.
This will likely result in a lower price of electricity and overall decrease in revenue.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
7-1
7 USE OF NUCLEAR POWER FOR SALE TO THE GRID
In order to ensure grid reliability (electrical voltage and frequency remain within limits) the
supply of electricity must match the demand for electricity at all times. However, due to daily
and seasonal variations in load (e.g., many air conditioners hit their peak loads on summer
afternoons), electricity demand is always changing. Generators which produce electricity can be
broadly defined as [72]:
• Baseload power plants which run continuously at full power
• Seasonal baseload power plants which run continuously at full power in winter and/or
summer but may vary their output with demand in spring and fall
• Intermediate power plants (or load following plants) which vary power output throughout
the day depending on demand
• Peaking power plants which may only run for the hottest or coldest weeks of the year and
otherwise maintain readiness for demand
In general, an electrical plant’s status between baseload and peaking is determined by its variable
cost of production. Traditional large light water nuclear power plants have high fixed costs due
to their extensive staff but low variable (fuel) costs to produce electricity. This results in their use
as baseload or seasonal baseload power. Nuclear plants also require continuous small power
adjustments following load changes due to inherent feedback loops, which makes continuous full
power operation more attractive. The price of electricity produced by coal and natural gas plants
is heavily dependent on the price of fuel, which results in their variable status from baseload to
peaking. Small <100 MWe gas and diesel fired power plants are typically the most expensive
way to produce electricity and are often used as peaking plants.
It is necessary to ‘overbuild’ electrical generating capacity to ensure that sufficient peaking
capacity exists for the highest demand periods of the year. When insufficient generating capacity
exists compared to demand, rolling blackouts may occur. Rolling blackouts reduce the demand
on the electrical grid by purposefully shutting off the supply of electricity to some consumers.
This ensures electrical equipment at critical locations such as hospitals continues to remain
available.
The sale of electricity in the US can broadly be divided into two categories, regulated and
deregulated.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
7-2
In a regulated environment, a public service commission (PSC) establishes the price of electricity
for all generators. In addition to the price of electricity the PSC is in charge of ensuring sufficient
electricity supply compared to projected peak demand, determining when new generation should
be constructed, and authorizing reinvestment in transmission infrastructure. Louisville Gas &
Electric and Kentucky Utilities Energy (LG&E and KU Energy) as well as their subsidiary Old
Dominion Power (ODP) are regulated utilities. (Some utilities, for example Powell Valley, are
only distributors and purchase all of their electricity from other providers.)
In a deregulated environment, generators supply electricity to the grid at a variable price which is
determined by the supply and demand of electricity at any given time. If too much generation is
available, the price of power falls, and more expensive generators shutdown for a period of hours
to months until there is enough demand to facilitate bringing them back online. If not enough
generation exists, the price of power rises which causes generators to start up and begin
producing power for the grid. Because peaking plants are necessary, but only operate a fraction
of the year, generators may be paid both for the actual electricity they provide to the grid as well
for their standby capacity. PJM is a regional transmission organization (RTO) that coordinates
the movement and sale of electricity on the deregulated PJM grid.
7.1 PJM Summary
The LENOWISCO region is not fully served by the PJM grid. The LENOWISCO region is
currently served by three separate generating utilities Appalachian Power Co., Kentucky Utilities
Co., and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Appalachian Power company does participate in the
PJM and some areas within Northern Wise county are part of the PJM. Kentucky Utilities Co.
and TVA are not part of the PJM.
Connection to the PJM grid requires study and analysis to ensure reliability criteria are met in
accordance with federal and regional standards. Upgrades, expansions, and enhancements to
PJM transmission lines and interconnection of new generation is governed by PJM’s Regional
Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP). The process for interconnection must be followed in
order to participate in the sale of electricity on the PJM grid and is described in Section 7.2.
Connection to the PJM grid will require connection to an electrical substation which is already
connected to the PJM grid. Three substations located near LENOWISCO were identified as
potential candidates for interconnection: Pocket, Hill, and Nagel.
The Pocket substation is located approximately 1 mile north of Pennington gap off of State
Route 606. The Pocket substation is connected via 500 kV lines to the Nagel substation (TN),
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
7-3
and via 161 kV lines to the Dorchester substation (VA) and the Harlan substation (KY). The
Pocket substation and its highlines are owned by Kentucky Utilities Co.
The Hill substation is located approximately 5 miles southwest of Fort Blackmore off of the
Clinch River Highway. The Hill substation is connected via 138 kV lines to the Nagel
substation (TN) and to Clinch River (VA) substation by way of the Copper Ridge substation. The
Hill substation and its transmission lines are owned by Appalachian Power Co.
The Nagel substation is located approximately 6 miles northwest of Kingsport TN off of Virginia
State Route 713 and is connected to the wider PJM via 138 kV transmission lines owned by
Appalachian Power Co. as well as 500 kV transmission lines owned by the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
In addition to existing substation infrastructure, new substation development has been proposed
within the LENOWISCO region. The Virginia Department of Energy has proposed Project
WiseLink in conjunction with other regional development partners. The scope of Project
WiseLink includes the construction of new transmission lines in Wise County. The transmission
expansion is proposed to be connected to the existing PJM grid near Pound and terminate
approximately 1 mile southwest of Appalachia, Va. Project WiseLink, if completed, would
provide a substation in close proximity to the Bullit and Lee County sites.
PJM supplemental project S2774 has been proposed to construct a greenfield 138/12 kV
substation (Salmon) connected to the Broadford (Smith) and Claypool Hill (Tazewell)
substations which are NE of Saltville, Virginia. Due to its location near the LENOWISCO
region, this supplemental project provides a budgetary reference for greenfield substation and
transmission lines. The construction of Salmon station in addition to 2.3 miles of double circuit
138 kV line is estimated to cost $8.5M. The cost is noted to be high per mile due to new access
road requirements and environmental surveying. 4.1 miles of fiber network connection are also
proposed to be installed below the 138 kV transmission lines with an estimated cost of $0.8M.
This project is in the scoping phase and was submitted by American Electric Power in October
2022 with a proposed in service date of September 2024 [73,74].
7.2 Grid Connection Requirements
The RTEP process for grid connection is described by the PJM 14 series of manuals (A-G). PJM
Manual 14A New Services Request Process outlines the process used to initiate a new service
request [75]. The new service customer initiates the interconnection process by processing a New
Service Queue Request due by either March 10
th
or September 10
th
for the first or second queue
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
7-4
of the year. New generation service requests are subdivided into interconnection requests of
20 MWe or less, or interconnection requests greater than 20 MWe. This process must be
followed in order to obtain a Wholesale Market Participant Agreement from the PJM.
Interconnection to the PJM grid is analyzed under a 3-phased study approach. These phases are
an initial feasibility study, a system impact study, and an interconnection facilities study. This
process allows the new service customer to receive tiered feedback on a proposed project, with
the option to withdraw from the expenditure of additional analysis if the business case is altered
by study results. For each phase of study, the new service customer is responsible for funding the
study and providing an initial deposit. Pricing and estimated cost of study information is
provided in PJM Manual 14A, for example the expected cost of a feasibility study for a large
generator in the AEP transmission zone is $26,000.
The feasibility study examines the practicality and cost of incorporating the additional generation
into the PJM system. The study is limited to basic analyses assuming summer peak load. The
study focuses on identifying estimates of the scope, cost, and lead time required for
interconnection of the proposed generation facility. As part of the feasibility study, the new
service customer defines a primary interconnection and a secondary point of interconnection (if
desired). Following the feasibility study the new service customer may determine whether or not
to proceed with a system impact study.
The system impact study is a more comprehensive regional analysis of the effects of adding the
new generation facility to the system. The study identifies the necessary upgrades which will be
required to support the new generation facility and provides comprehensive time and cost
estimates for the construction of those upgrades. Following the completion of the system impact
study the new service customer may determine whether or not to proceed with the final facilities
study.
For generation connection requests greater than 20 MWe, a stability analysis is required during
the facilities study phase. The facilities study identifies all control equipment required for the
new generator interconnection, and the necessary engineering design required to begin
construction of required facilities. A good-faith estimate is provided to the developer for the
costs of the work required.
7.3 Utility Comments
It is reasonable to assume that most customers would want a grid connection as a backup power
source to what is provided by the nuclear plant. The plant itself would also benefit from the
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
7-5
security of having a grid connection to sell electricity to if the commercial partner were to
decrease its electricity demand. Interviews were conducted with nearby utilities in order to assess
their interest in nuclear power.
7.3.1 AEP
AEP is engaged with many of the advanced reactor vendors and continues to stay informed of
their developments. Consistent with the Governor Youngkin's energy plan, AEP considers
nuclear to be an important part of Virginia's energy portfolio and supports the development of
SMR technology for deployment. AEP is unlikely to be a first adopter of new nuclear
technologies but plans to increase their involvement in the space as the technology becomes
more mature. AEP's interest in the nuclear space is currently focused on larger SMRs
(>300 MW) because AEP is most interested in grid scale generation. AEP is open to working
with other utilities and regional stakeholders to ensure the success of new nuclear projects in
Southwest Virginia.
7.3.2 Dominion Energy
Driven by the construction of datacenters in Northern Virginia, Dominion Energy Virginia has
some of the largest forecasted load growth of any utility on the PJM grid. Additionally,
Dominion Energy Virginia recognizes the Commonwealth’s plans to have 100% of energy needs
met by carbon free resources within the next few decades. To support this increasing demand and
the need to ensure reliability, while also decarbonizing the grid, Dominion Energy Virginia is
evaluating options to significantly expand its nuclear power generation fleet. Dominion Energy
Virginia has initiated outreach with SMR vendors and has increased engagement steadily
through today, culminating in the scoping of new SMRs into their future generation plans. The
continued evaluation of SMRs as a potential future energy supply resource led to SMRs being
listed as a supply side resource as soon as the early 2030s in Dominion Energy Virginia’s 2022
Update to its 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP, Reference [76]).
As of 2022, nearly all of Dominion Energy Virginia’s potential portfolios that involve
decarbonization assume significant deployment of SMRs. The most recent IRP update assumes
that one 285 MW SMR could be built per year starting in 2034. Dominion representatives noted
that the 2023 comprehensive IRP, which is filed every three years, is expected to be published in
early May 2023..
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
7-6
Across its fleet, Dominion Energy Virginia and its affiliates currently operate seven nuclear
power reactors in Connecticut, Virginia, and South Carolina, with four units that serve Dominion
Energy Virginia customers. Dominion Energy Virginia has NRC approval to extend the
operating license of the two units at Surry Power Station for an additional 20 years to a total of
80 operating years (through May 2052 and January 2053). The company is also pursuing
operating license extensions for North Anna Power Station and V.C. Summer Power Station, and
is evaluating operating license extensions for Millstone Power Station [77]. Additionally, in
2007, Dominion Energy applied for a Combined Construction and Operating License for the
construction and operation of an Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, which was
granted by the NRC in 2017. Thus, Dominion Energy has invaluable recent experience with the
licensing process for new nuclear reactors which can be leveraged for new SMR development.
This current experience with operating plants, relicensing with the NRC, and the licensing of
new reactors makes Dominion Energy Virginia well positioned to be the first adopter of SMR
technology in the state of Virginia.
7.4 Coal to Nuclear
The equipment used to generate electricity and distribute it to the power grid is not inherently
unique to nuclear power plants. All steam cycle plants boil water to create high pressure steam
via a heat source (e.g., coal, natural gas, nuclear) which creates electricity by spinning a turbine
connected to an electrical generator. Upon exiting the turbine, the steam is condensed into water
by rejecting heat to a heat sink. Recent studies have focused on the economic benefits of reusing
steam cycle components of retired coal plants to reduce capital construction costs of new nuclear
power plants [78]. This coal-to-nuclear (C2N) conversion is expected to lower capital costs in
certain scenarios. Three different subsets of coal plant equipment are potentially able to be
reused during a C2N transition:
• Transmission, switchyards, and office buildings (Section 7.4.1)
• Ultimate heat sink infrastructure (Section 7.4.2)
• Steam cycle components (Section 7.4.3)
This section also provides a review of the DOE’s C2N study (Section 7.4.4) and a review of
power plants near LENOWISCO that have recently closed (Section 7.4.5).
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
7-7
7.4.1 Transmission, Switchyards, and Office Buildings
The preexisting site infrastructure for electricity transmission as well as related office buildings
are the most easily repurposed infrastructure for a new nuclear power plant. The power lines
from the switchyard to the grid can be reused provided amperage (current) limitations are met.
Switchyard components such as breakers and relays must also meet amperage limitations.
Generator step up transformers function to increase the output voltage of the generator to grid
voltages, and may be reused if the new generator output voltage is the same as the output voltage
of the retired generator. This represents substantial cost savings as the cost/mile of new
transmission lines can exceed $3M/mile [79].
Preexisting land and office facilities can also be reused. This includes physical land and yard
work, office buildings, roads and parking, cafeterias, and other infrastructure necessary for
workers and offices unrelated to the industrial activity.
7.4.2 Ultimate Heat Sink Infrastructure
Steam cycle plants require an ultimate heat sink to condense exhausted steam into water after it
exits the turbine as described in Section 3.2.5. Approximately two thirds of the energy produced
by the heat source is exhausted to the ultimate heat sink during electricity production. The heat
sink may be a body of water used for direct cooling of a condenser, a water source used for
evaporative cooling in conjunction with cooling towers, or direct atmospheric cooling. The reuse
of existing cooling structures within the envelope of the previous coal plant’s thermal discharges
is feasible to reduce capital expenditures and provide for reduced uncertainty during permit
applications. Thermal discharges or consumptive water usage which is within the envelope of the
coal plant’s previous operation may be easier to permit. The new nuclear power plant can utilize
the cooling structures already present if supported by the plant design.
7.4.3 Steam Cycle Components
Reusing steam cycle components such as turbine generators, steam generators, feedwater heaters,
and feedwater pumps would result in significant potential savings but also significant challenges
when performing a C2N transition. These components work together in an integral system along
with the heat source in order to produce electricity. These components are also designed for
specific temperature and pressure ranges based on the heat source of the original plant. The reuse
of existing systems would require careful selection of a nuclear reactor design which can match
the operating profile of the existing equipment. Many LWR designs cannot reach the operational
temperatures and pressures of critical or supercritical coal plants and would be unable to reuse
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
7-8
steam cycle components, although some AR designs may be able to. Further, there may not be a
regulatory pathway for reuse of some components such as steam generators, as many nuclear
related components are required to be purchased and installed as Safety-Related components
which requires significant quality control requirements. One potential solution is to install an
intermediate heat storage system between the nuclear reactor and the reused steam cycle
components which interfaces with both.
7.4.4 C2N Study Results
Two different scopes of C2N conversion have been studied as potentially feasible. The reuse of
only transmission and ultimate heat sink infrastructure was estimated to save approximately 25%
compared to greenfield siting. If steam cycle components were to be reused in addition to
transmission and ultimate heat sink infrastructure, a savings of approximately 35% was
estimated.
7.4.5 Shuttered Power Plants
The LENOWISCO planning district does not contain any retired power plants. However, AEP’s
Clinch River power plant is located in Russel County in the unincorporated community of Carbo.
AEP’s Clinch River was initially designed as a three unit 705 MWe coal plant. Units 1 and 2
were converted into a 484 MWe natural gas fired power plant. Unit 3 has been retired since 2015
and may be a candidate for a C2N transition with additional study.
7.5 LENOWISCO Differentiators
The LENOWISCO region is uniquely served by three different electrical power providers,
Kentucky Utilities Co., Tennessee Valley Authority, and Appalachian Power Co. These utilities
represent a mix of regulated and deregulated. Access to the PJM regional transmission
organization is also available in certain areas within the region.
This has the potential to complicate or ease the reactor siting process. The existence of multiple
utilities provides multiple options for siting of the power plant. A single noncommittal utility
will not prevent reactor siting in the LENOWISCO ROI if other utilities have interest in their
own service area.
Additionally, a consortium approach between the utilities could be a path forward for a larger
300 MWe SMR site. It is not uncommon for multiple utilities to provide a stake in large
construction projects resulting in joint ownership which lowers the capital barriers to entry for
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
7-9
each stakeholder. The Utah Association of Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) is composed of
50 member utilities and is currently proceeding with license application activities for a NuScale
reactor near Idaho Falls. A similar joint venture between interested utilities in the LENOWISCO
region may be possible.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
8-1
8 ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE
The existing fleet of nuclear power plants (e.g., large LWRs like Surry and North Anna) are
massive sites that cost billions of dollars (inflation adjusted) to construct and have employed
hundreds of full time staff for more than 40 years. The SMR designs being considered for this
effort are smaller but are still expected to cost hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to
construct, employ up to 100 people and provide electricity and tax revenues for the community
for decades. The remainder of this section is structured as follows.
• Section 8.1 provides a discussion regarding the amount expected to be spent during
construction.
• Section 8.2 provides a discussion of the different cost accounting methods which may be
used to report the costs of nuclear power plant construction and electricity.
• Section 8.3 provides a discussion of the direct jobs available at the plant once it is built.
• Section 8.4 provides a discussion of the indirect and induced jobs that are expected to be
created as a result of the plant.
• Section 8.5 provides a discussion of the tax revenue expected to be generated from the
power plant.
8.1 Local Spending during Construction
All large construction projects result in the creation of numerous temporary jobs and subsequent
spending within the local community. The residents of LENOWISCO already possess many of
the skills (e.g., general construction, heavy machinery operation) needed to staff the expected
roles. It is likely that compared to other areas, a project in LENOWISCO could provide much of
the required skilled construction labor locally.
One useful reference point is the Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center (VCHEC) in Wise County.
Although fossil plants have different levels of complexity compared to nuclear plants, many
aspects of construction are similar. VCHEC currently employees 121 direct employees and
employed 2,000 people during construction [80].
8.2 Total Project Cost
The project costs for new SMR construction are currently unknown. A primary reason that the
costs are difficult to estimate is because previously constructed nuclear plants in the U.S. have
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
8-2
taken several years to build. This has resulted in compounding financing costs when construction
delays occur. SMRs intend to solve this problem with factory manufactured components and
short construction schedules, but that ability has not yet been demonstrated. Electricity and
revenue are generated by the facility for decades after construction is complete, which makes
costs sensitive to the operating life of the power plant. During electricity generation, operating
and maintenance costs are incurred. Therefore, many assumptions are needed to determine what
the cost of the electricity generated by the facility will be. Several methods of estimating project
costs are described below and shown visually in Figure 8-1 [81].
• Direct Costs - Direct costs include the costs of equipment and materials needed to build the
plant. This includes costs incurred to produce equipment in offsite factories (the reactor
vessel, the turbine, etc.), labor onsite to construct the plant or install the equipment, and the
cost of all materials consumed onsite (concrete, steel, formwork, scaffolding, etc.). These
costs are not expected to significantly change if the time to construct the plant increases.
• Indirect Costs - Indirect costs include construction services, engineering, and field
supervision required for the overall project execution but not assignable to any one piece of
equipment. These costs are expected to increase as the time to construct the plant increases.
• Base Cost – Base cost is the sum of the direct and indirect costs.
• Overnight Construction Cost (OCC) – OCC is the cost of construction if all costs were
incurred at once. In addition to the base costs, this OCC includes contingency costs (i.e.,
additional or unexpected costs during construction) and owner’s costs. Owner’s costs are
the costs borne by the owner (exclusive of financing) including land, permitting, operator
training, and taxes. This is expected to be roughly 60% of the levelized cost of electricity.
• Total Capital Investment Cost (TCIC) – TCIC is the amount of capital needed for a project
to proceed. This is the sum total of all the costs (including financing) incurred throughout a
project schedule up until the plant begins operation and begins producing revenue.
• Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) – LCOE is a metric used to determine the cost to
produce electricity over the lifetime of the plant. This metric time weights all costs incurred
during construction and during operation.
The Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) is the first six module NuScale plant and provides a
useful reference point for SMR construction. It is reported that the project is expected to cost
between 5.1 and 9.24 billion dollars (this estimate is likely the TCIC because it includes interest
rate assumptions and owner’s costs). The LCOE for this project is currently projected to be
$89/MWh. The costs for this project should be viewed as a ceiling for future NuScale projects.
The first of a kind (FOAK) project cost is often significantly higher than future projects
(sometimes referred to as the Nth of a kind (NOAK) project). It is not unreasonable to assume
that if a NuScale six module plant were built in LENOWISCO ten years from now, it would be
the third such plant in the United States and the project costs would be 50-75% of what they
were for the CFPP. This concept is illustrated by Figure 8-2 which shows the expected cost
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
8-3
savings to construct a second or third unit at Sizewell (a nuclear power plant in the United
Kingdom).
Estimating the total project cost at this junction are difficult and require numerous assumptions.
Several of these are listed below.
• Government Incentives – As discussed in Section 5, the available government incentives
could be used to reduce the capital costs of the project by 50%. Further, government
subsidies could be used to secure a favorable interest rate and significantly reduce the cost
of financing the project. The actual cost of any future projects is highly dependent on what
government incentives are available.
• Financing Costs – As noted above, OCC are expected to be roughly 60% of LCOE. The
discount rates used to consider the cost of financing form a significant cost in any large
construction project.
• NOAK benefits – As briefly described here, the costs to first adopters of new plant designs
are significantly greater than the costs of later plants. Part of the promise of small modular
reactors is that their largest components will be able to be manufactured in a factory and
several of each part will be needed for each plant. This means that NOAK benefits may be
realized much earlier in the lifetime of the product.
Figure 8-1 A Visualization of the Factors that Affect LCOE [82]
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
8-4
Figure 8-2 Cost Reduction Trajectory of Proposals for Sizewell C [83]
8.3 Direct Jobs
SMRs are designed to have reduced operating costs compared to current plant designs. One way
in which this is achieved, is designing the plants such that fewer full-time staff are needed. Table
3-1 (and repeated in Table 8-1) shows the number of employees expected for each of the plant
designs. These range from 10-300 direct employees. This is significantly less than the roughly
900 that work at Surry Nuclear Power Plant [84]. Although a SMR will bring direct jobs to the
region, it is expected that the primary benefits will be tax revenues and reliable and affordable
electricity which will encourage other businesses to come to the region.
The jobs created by a nuclear power plant require varied levels of qualification, training, and
education. A college degree is required for some engineering jobs at the nuclear power plant.
However, many of the jobs at the facility will require skilled and specialized craft work requiring
an Associate’s degree, certifications, or a high school diploma with relevant work experience.
Power plants require day to day operation and maintenance workers to ensure the facility
operates reliably. Skilled craft workers positions do not require nuclear experience. Training in
the trades may come from prior work experience or be provided by a community college, such as
Mountain Empire Community College. The nuclear industry recognizes the need to train the
workforce and has implemented the Nuclear Uniform Curriculum Project in partnerships with
community colleges to prepare students for careers in the nuclear industry [85].
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
8-5
The following types of jobs at nuclear power plants do not require a Bachelor’s degree:
• Mechanics and welders perform mechanical maintenance tasks such as lubrication of
rotating equipment, changing of filters, and overhauling pumps or valves.
• Electricians perform maintenance on motors, circuit breakers, and transformers.
• Instrumentation and control technicians maintain the performance of valves and operating
systems.
• Security officers are required to protect the power plant and often comprised of individuals
with prior military or police experience.
• Plant operators are required to monitor the power plant’s operation and are trained to
provide fire fighting and emergency first aid response.
• Control room operators are senior operators which are trained by the power plant to
monitor and control the reactor.
Jobs which require college degrees may be fulfilled by employees with related engineering
degrees, or other technical degrees such as biology, biochemistry, or chemistry which are offered
locally from UVA Wise. Engineering roles may also be performed by experienced technicians
from the navy, fossil power generation industries, or the plant itself who have developed
extensive knowledge of plant components and systems over their career but do not necessarily
hold a degree.
The DOE’s coal to nuclear report estimates that roughly 50% of direct jobs at an SMR require a
Bachelor’s degree or extensive work experience and the other half require a high school diploma
or a high school diploma plus a post-secondary certificate, some college courses, or an
Associate’s degree [78]. It is expected that these jobs would be filled by the current residents of
LENOWISCO and remain in the community for the decades-long lifetime of the plant.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
8-6
Table 8-1 Expected Number of Employees from Each Plant Design
Vendor
Reactor
Type
Power Output
(MWe)
Direct
Employees
Induced and
Indirect
Employees
Site
Footprint
GE-Hitachi
BWRX-300
BWR 300 75 300
26,300 m
2
(6.5 acres)
TerraPower
Natrium
SFR 345 250 1000
180,000 m
2
(44 acres)
NuScale
VOYGR 6
PWR
720 (12
60 MWe
modules)
270 1080
140,000 m
2
(35 acres)
X-energy
XE-100
HTGR
320 (4 80 MWe
modules)
3 12
130,000 m
2
(32 acres)
BWXT
Project Pele
HTGR 1-5 2 8
<2,000 m
2
(< 0.5 acres)
Ultrasafe
Micro-
Modular
Reactor
HTGR
10 (2 5 MWe
modules)
0 0
< 20,000 m
2
(< 5 acres)
[4]
Westinghouse
eVinci
SFR 5 2 0
<2,000 m
2
(< 0.5 acres)
[5]
8.4 Indirect and Induced Jobs
The presence of the plant would also create indirect jobs, or positions created to supply the goods
and services consumed by the workers that take the direct jobs. These are jobs in the surrounding
community as a result of new jobs that were directly created. For a nuclear plant these would
include contracted laborers and other employees that support the plant but do not work for the
plant. It is also possible to estimate jobs induced by the plant. These are jobs in the local
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
8-7
economy such as teachers and cashiers that would support the personal needs and spending of
the direct and indirect jobs. The Coal to Nuclear report estimates that roughly 4 times as many
direct and induced jobs will be created as there are direct jobs (roughly one indirect job and two
induced jobs per direct job).
It is also important to consider that the collocated industry is expected to be a creator of jobs.
The estimates provided here do not include the economic impact of any new electricity
consuming industry.
One useful reference point is the Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center (VCHEC) in Wise County.
This facility provides 121 direct jobs, and it is estimated to have generated 180 indirect jobs [80].
8.5 Tax Revenues
One of the primary benefits of energy production facilities, nuclear or otherwise, is the tax
revenues generated by them. Tax revenues generated are highly variable and depend both on
local taxation and local rules for depreciating assets. The DOE’s coal to nuclear report estimates
that a 12 module NuScale plant (924 MWe employing 360 workers
*
) in a representative county
would provide a peak of over $7 million in taxes in a single year and a total of 97.2 million in
taxes over 18 years [78]. This is approximately $100,000 in total revenue per MWe. This
estimate does not account for the additional taxes which would be generated as a result of
income taxes paid from the salaries of plant workers.
One useful reference point is the Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center (VCHEC) in Wise County.
This facility has generated 22 million MWh of electricity in the last ten years. VCHEC has a
nameplate capacity of 610 MWe, but does not operate continuously. VCHEC’s production is
equivalent to 251 MWe at a 100% capacity factor and is therefore similar in annual generation to
a 300 MWe SMR. This facility paid $11.2 million in personal and real property taxes to Wise
County in 2022 [80].
*
Since that report was published, NuScale has adjusted their staffing expectations from 360 to 270.
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
9-1
9 REFERENCES
1. Cooling Power Plants. World Nuclear. Updated September 2020. https://world-
nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/cooling-power-plants.aspx
2. Small Nuclear Power Reactors. World Nuclear. Updated March 2023. https://www.world-
nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-
power-reactors.aspx
3. Natrium Infrastructure Reuse: Meteorological Tower and Water Supply. TerraPower.
2022. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2208/ML22082A222.pdf
4. MMR Energy System. Ultra Safe Nuclear. 2023. https://www.usnc.com/mmr/
5. Executive Summary of the Evinci Micro-Reactor Deployment in Mining and Remote
Canadian Communities Feasibility Study. Westinhouse and Bruce Power. October 2021.
http://brucepower.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/210283A_WestinghouseBPMicroReactor_ExecutiveSummary_R
000.pdf
6. ARIS. International Atomic Energy Agency. https://aris.iaea.org/sites/overview.html
7. BWRX-300. GE Hitachi. 2023. https://nuclear.gepower.com/build-a-plant/products/nuclear-
power-plants-overview/bwrx-300
8. D. Yurman “TerraPower and Pacific Corp Lay in Plans for Five New Natrium Reactors to
Replace Fossil Fuel Power Plants.” Neutron Bytes. October 30, 2022.
https://neutronbytes.com/2022/10/30/terrapower-and-pacific-corp-lay-in-plans-for-five-
new-natrium-reactors-to-replace-fossil-fuel-power-plants/
9. Natrium. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Updated April 06, 2023.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/licensing-activities/pre-application-
activities/natrium.html
10. Demonstrating the Natrium Reactor and Integrated Energy System. TerraPower. 2023.
https://www.terrapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/TP_2023_Natrium_Technology-
0215.pdf
11. NRC Certifies First U.S. Small Modular Reactor Design. Office of Nuclear Energy.
January 20, 2023. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-certifies-first-us-small-modular-
reactor-design
12. NuScale Projects. NuScale. https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/projects
13. Reactor: XE-100. X-Energy. 2023. https://x-energy.com/reactors/xe-100
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
9-2
14. X-Energy Completes $40 Million Project to Further Develop High-Temperature Gas
Reactor. Office of Nuclear Energy. August 23, 2022. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/x-
energy-completes-40-million-project-further-develop-high-temperature-gas-reactor
15. Xe-100. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Updated March 27, 2023.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/licensing-activities/pre-application-
activities/xe-100.html
16. BWXT to Build First Advanced Microreactor in United States. BWXT Technologies. June
9, 2022. https://www.bwxt.com/news/2022/06/09/BWXT-to-Build-First-Advanced-
Microreactor-in-United-States
17. J. Waksmanm, “Project Pele Overview: Mobile Nuclear Power for Future DoD Needs.”
March 2020.
https://gain.inl.gov/GAINEPRINEI_MicroreactorProgramVirtualWorkshopPres/Day-
2%20Presentations/Day-2-am.02-
Nichols_PeleProgOverviewPublicMarch2020,19Aug2020.pdf
18. D. Dalton, “Urenco to Provide Enriched Uranium for Ultra Safe’s MMR.” Nucnet. March
3, 2023. https://www.nucnet.org/news/urenco-to-provide-enriched-uranium-for-ultra-safe-
s-mmr-3-5-2023
19. “Illinois Microreactor Demonstration Project.” University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
https://npre.illinois.edu/about/illinois-microreactor-project?ref=usnc.com
20. MMR Energy System. Ultra Safe Nuclear. 2023. https://www.usnc.com/mmr/
21. eVinci Microreactor Team Closes Out 2022 with Milestone Achievement. Westinghouse
Electric Company. January 27, 2023. https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/blog/evinci-
microreactor-team-closes-out-2022-with-milestone-achievement
22. eVinci. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Updated April 10, 2023.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/licensing-activities/pre-application-
activities/evinci.html
23. A, Maioli, H. Detar, R. Haessler, B. Friedman, C. Belovesick, J. Scobel, S. Kinnas, M.
Smith, J. van Wyk, K. Fleming. Modernization of Technical Requirements for Licensing of
Advanced Non-Light Water Reactors: Westinghouse eVinci Micro-Reactor Licensing
Modernization Project Demonstration. August 2019.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1922/ML19227A322.pdf
24. eVinci Microreactor, Westinghouse, 2023. https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/energy-
systems/evinci-microreactor
25. A. W. Herron. “Westinghouse and Penn State to Explore Advancing Sustainable Micro-
Reactors.” Pennsylvania State University. May 19, 2022.
26. NUREG-1555, Draft Revision 1, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for
Nuclear Power Plants: Environmental Standard Review Plan. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Comission. July 2007. Retrieved from US NRC Web site: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-
rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/updates.html
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
9-3
27. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 3, Preparation of Environmental Reports. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Comission. September 2018. Retrieved from US NRC Web site:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1807/ML18071A400.pdf
28. Environmental Impact Statement for Kingston Fossil Plant Retirement. Federal Register
The Daily Journal of The United States Government. June 15, 2021.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/06/15/2021-12693/environmental-impact-
statement-for-kingston-fossil-plant-retirement
29. Kingston Fossil Plant. Tennessee Valley Authority. https://www.tva.com/energy/our-
power-system/coal/kingston-fossil-plant
30. GEH BWRX-300. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Updated September 21, 2022.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/smr/licensing-activities/pre-application-
activities/bwrx-300.html
31. Tennessee Valley Authority, Ontario Power Generation, and Synthos Green Energy Invest
in Development of GE Hitachi Small Modular Reactor Technology. Tennassee Valley
Authority. March 23, 2023. https://www.tva.com/newsroom/press-releases/tennessee-
valley-authority-ontario-power-generation-and-synthos-green-energy-invest-in-
development-of-ge-hitachi-small-modular-reactor-technology
32. Wyoming Site Chosen for Natrium Plant. World Nuclear News. November 17, 2021.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Wyoming-site-chosen-for-Natrium-plant
33. Natrium. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Updated April 06, 2023
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/licensing-activities/pre-application-
activities/natrium.html
34. The Demonstration Project. Natrium.
https://natriumpower.com/wyoming/#:~:text=TerraPower%20is%20working%20to%20adv
ance,coal%20plant%20in%20Kemmerer%2C%20Wyoming.
35. Regulatory Guide 4.7, Revision 3, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power
Stations. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. March 2014. Retrieved from US NRC Web
site: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1218/ML12188A053.pdf
36. US Code of Federal Regulations, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization
Facilities,” Appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” Part 50, Title
10, “Energy.”
37. US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, “Protection of the Environment,” Parts 1500–
1508, “Regulations for Implementing NEPA,” Council on Environmental Quality,
Washington DC.
38. US Code of Federal Regulations, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” Part 51, Title 10, “Energy.
39. US Code of Federal Regulations, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear
Power Plants,” Part 52, Title 10, “Energy.”
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
9-4
40. US Code of Federal Regulations, “Reactor Site Criteria,” Part 100, Title 10 “Energy.”
41. Regulatory Guide 1.206, Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 2007. Retrieved from US NRC Web site:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-reactors/rg/01-
206/index.html
42. Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants, Washington, DC. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. November 2015. Retrieved from US NRC Web site:
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1410/ML14107A411.pdf
43. US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, “Protection of the Environment Part 122, “EPA
Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,”
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
44. US Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, “Protection of the Environment, Part 423,
“Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category,” US Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
45. Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
February 2022. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1928/ML19289E561.pdf
46. Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Plans and
Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants: Criteria for Emergency Planning in an
Early Site Permit Application. NRC, NUREG-0654, Supplement 2, ADAMS Accession
No. ML050130188. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0501/ML050130188.pdf
47. Criteria for Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. February 2021. NUREG/CR-7002, Revision 1, Retrieved from NRC Web
site: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2101/ML21013A504.pdf
48. Regulatory Guide 1.23: Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
49. L. Aller T. Bennet, J. H. Lehr, R. J. Petty, G. Hackett. “DRASTIC: A Standardized System
for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeologic Settings,” US EPA
Report 600/287/035, US Environmental Protection Agency. 1987.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?Lab=ORD&dirEntryID=35474
50. Standard Review Plan (SRP) for the review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power
Plants: LWR Edition. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0800. Washington,
DC.
51. Executive Order 11990--Protection of wetlands. Office of the Federal Register (OFR).
Reviewed August 15, 2016. https://www.archives.gov/federal-
register/codification/executive-order/11990.html
52. Regulatory Guide 4.7: General Site Suitability Criteria For Nuclear Power Plants. US
NRC. November 1975 Rev 1. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1303/ML13038A109.pdf
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
9-5
53. T. Lawson (LENOWISCO) email to J. Koza-Reinders (DEI) on March 31, 2023. IC-203-
2301-00-03.
54. Regulatory Review of Micro-Reactors – Initial Considerations. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. February 5, 2020. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2004/ML20044E249.pdf
55. Pub. L. 117–58, 117th Congress. H.R. 3684. 135 STAT. 429. November 15, 2021.
https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ58/PLAW-117publ58.pdf
56. Pub. L. 116–260, div. Z, title VIII, § 8011, Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2589.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/17392
57. Building a Clean Energy Economy: A Guidebook to the Inflation Reduction Act’s
Investments in Clean Energy and Climate Action, Version 2. The White House.
cleanenergy.gov. January 2023.
58. Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear. Department of Energy. March 2023.
https://liftoff.energy.gov/
59. S. Patel, “Novel UAMPS-NuScale SMR Nuclear Project Gains Participant Approval to
Proceed to Next Phase.” Power Magazine. March 2, 2023.
https://www.powermag.com/novel-uamps-nuscale-smr-nuclear-project-gains-participant-
approval-to-proceed-to-next-phase/?oly_enc_id=0674A8248356A9J
60. Prevailing Wage and Apprenticeship Initial Guidance Under Section 45(b)(6)(B)(ii) and
Other Substantially Similar Provisions. Internal Revenue Service. November 30, 2022.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/30/2022-26108/prevailing-wage-and-
apprenticeship-initial-guidance-under-section-45b6bii-and-other-substantially
61. Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization (AMLER) Program. US Department of the
Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
https://www.osmre.gov/programs/reclaiming-abandoned-mine-lands/amler
62. Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization Program. Virginia Energy.
https://energy.virginia.gov/coal/mined-land-repurposing/AMLER.shtml
63. Opportunity Zones. Virginia DHCD. https://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/opportunity-zones-oz
64. Regional & Local Assistance Tobacco Region Opportunity Fund (TROF). VEDP Virginia
Economic Development Partnership. https://www.vedp.org/incentive/tobacco-region-
opportunity-fund-trof
65. Discretionary Incentives: Commonwealth’s Development Opportunity Fund (COF).
VEDP, Virginia Economic Development Partnership.
https://www.vedp.org/incentive/commonwealths-development-opportunity-fund-cof
66. Electric Sales, Revenue, and Average Price. U.S. Energy Information Administration.
October 6, 2022. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/index.php
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table10.pdf
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
9-6
67. PJM Load Forecast Report, January 2023. https://www.pjm.com/-/media/library/reports-
notices/load-forecast/2023-load-report.ashx
68. US Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-923, Power Plant Operations Report;
US Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860, 'Annual Electric Generator Report'
and Form EIA-860M, 'Monthly Update to the Annual Electric Generator Report.'
Retrieved from EIA Web site:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b
69. R. K. Hill, OnPoint Development Strategies LLC. “Project Oasis Market Analysis for Data
Center Investment in Southwest Virginia.” September 2020.
70. Economics of Nuclear Power. World Nuclear Association. August 2022. https://world-
nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx
71. D. Schlissel, “Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular
reactor.” Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. January 11, 2023.
https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-
modular-
reactor#:~:text=Key%20Findings,(SMR)%20have%20risen%20dramatically.&text=As%2
0recently%20as%20mid-2021,MWh%2C%20a%2053%25%20increase.
72. Electric generators' Roles Vary Due to Daily and Seasonal Variation in Demand. EIA.
June 8, 2011.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=1710#:~:text=As%20demand%20varies
%20over%20the,electricity%20systems%20meet%20peak%20demand
73. PJM 2022 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan. March 14, 2023.
https://www.pjm.com/-/media/library/reports-notices/2022-rtep/2022-rtep-report.ashx
74. Submission of Supplemental Projects for Inclusion in the Local Plan. American Electric
Power. February 2, 2023. https://pjm.com/-/media/committees-groups/committees/srrtep-
w/postings/2022/aep-local-plan-submission-of-the-supplemental-projects-for-2022-
rtep.ashx
75. PJM Manual 14A: New Services Request Process Revision: 29. PJM Interconnections
Project Department. August 24, 2021. https://www.pjm.com/-
/media/documents/manuals/m14a.ashx
76. Virginia Electric and Power Company 2022 Update to the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan.
Dominion Energy. Case No. PUR-2022-00147 and Docket No. E-100, Sub 182. September
1, 2022.
77. Nuclear Energy: Clean, reliable energy available 24/7. Dominion Energy.
https://www.dominionenergy.com/projects-and-facilities/nuclear-facilities/nuclear-energy
78. J. K. Hansen, W. D. Jenson, A. M. Wrobel, K. Biegel, T.K. Kim, R. Belles & F.
Omitaomu. Investigating Benefits and Challenges of Converting Retiring Coal Plants Into
Nuclear Plants. United States. https://doi.org/10.2172/1886660
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
9-7
79. G. W. Griffith, “Transitioning Coal Power Plants to Nuclear Power.” 2021. Retrieved from
United States: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1843924
80. Application of Virginia Electric and Power Company, for revision of rate adjustment
clause: Rider s, Virginia city Hybrid Energy Center for the Rate Years Commencing April
1, 2022 and April 1, 2023. Virginia State Corporation Commission Case Number PUR-
2021-00114. November 9, 2022.
81. Advanced Nuclear Technology: Economic-Based Research and Development Roadmap for
Nuclear Power Plant Construction. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2019. 3002015935.
82. P. A. Chaplin, “Techno-Economic Evaluation of Cross-Cutting Technologies for Cost
Reduction in Nuclear Power Plants”, Master’s Thesis Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. June 2018.
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/119044/1059517934-MIT.pdf?sequence=1
83. E. Ingersoll, “Economic Perspective – UK ETI Nuclear Cost Drivers Project. Presentation
at EPRI/GAIN/NEI Workshop on Economics-Based R&D for Nuclear Power
Construction.” Washington, D.C. January 2019.
84. G. Harki. “Surry Nuclear Power Plant: A Look Inside.” The Virginian Pilot, 8 Aug. 2019,
https://www.pilotonline.com/news/environment/article_c6e8b31b-0db7-537c-ba96-
7f93957265d8.html.
85. Nuclear Education and Training: From Concern to Capability. Nuclear Energy Agency,
2012. https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/6979-nuclear-
education.pdf
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
A-1
A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
The industry questionnaire contained a total of twelve questions [53]. The results of the survey
are listed below. In total, there were ten respondents.
1. Do you believe that energy policies should consider nuclear energy as one of many energy
sources to provide electricity?
– Yes 100%
– No
– Unsure
2. How familiar are you with presently published energy policies and legislation?
– Not familiar 10%
– Somewhat Familiar 50%
– Very Familiar 40%
3. Would you prefer to be engaged and informed on presently published energy policies and
legislation?
– Yes 100%
– No 0%
4. If you answered yes to the above, who do you feel could/would best provide the public
information related to presently published energy policies and legislation?
– Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Virginia Energy 80%
– Independent 3rd Party Consultants 10%
– Other Governmental Agencies 0%
– Utilities or Nuclear Energy Developers 0%
– Other (please specify whom) 10%
– Other responses: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; National Academies of Science and
Engineering- Committee on Advanced Nuclear Technologies
5. Would you support additional studies to determine the feasibility of utilizing Small
Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the coalfields of Southwest Virginia if the new technologies
receive approvals by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
– Yes 90%
– No 0%
– Unsure 10%
6. Do you have suggestions as to other community leaders and organizations whose input
should be sought for future input? If so, please specify whom:
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
A-2
– Local economic developers, community colleges, SWVA Energy R&D Authority,
InvestSWVA and Energy DELTA Lab
– Local Economic Developers, Invest SWVA, other stakeholders
– The possible siting, development, and operation of smrs will have very long-term
implications for the citizens of southwest Virginia. As such, it is critical to solicit
meaningful input from a diverse spectrum of organized stakeholder groups as well as
individual citizens. The overall goal should be to share information equitably and solicit
input from diverse people, voices, and ideas. This can help lay the groundwork for creating
a well informed and engaged community that understands the issue and can have a
meaningful degree of influence on decisions made.
– Recommend broad public outreach including presentations to Kiwanis, Rotary, etc.
– InvestSWVA/SWVA R&D Energy Authority
– VNEC and VNECA
7. Who do you feel could/would best provide public information related to Small Modular
Reactor development in the coalfields of Southwest Virginia? Please check all that apply:
– Independent 3rd Party Consultants 22%
– Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Virginia Energy 44%
– Other Governmental Agencies 11%
– Other (please specify whom) 22%
– Other responses:
⋅ Nuclear Regulatory Commission; National Academies of Science and Engineering-
Committee on Advanced Nuclear Technologies
⋅ Those advancing SMRs and related technologies in other countries
⋅ InvestSWVA/SWVA R&D Energy Authority
⋅ VNEC
8. How would you prefer to be engaged and informed pertaining to the technological
development of Small Modular Reactor(s) in the coalfields of Southwest Virginia?"
– Community Forums/Meetings (Held In-Person and/or virtually) 50%
– Stakeholder Panels (Held In-Person and/or virtually) 40%
– Community Fact Sheets (Disseminated via Email) 10%
9. Who do you feel would best be positioned to facilitate community informational meetings
related to the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the coalfields of
Southwest Virginia?
– Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Virginia Energy 70%
– Independent 3rd Party Consultants 10%
– Other Governmental Agencies 0%
– Utilities or Nuclear Energy Developers 0%
– Other (please specify whom) 20%
– Other responses:
R-203-2301-001-01, Rev. 0
A-3
⋅ A professional and unbiased facilitation group from academia or elsewhere that does not
have a stake in the outcome of the decision regarding whether or not to pursue SMR
technologies in Southwest VA.
⋅ VNEC
10. What future topics should be included in subsequent Small Modular Reactor feasibility
reviews? Please provide responses below:
⋅ Supply chain opportunities and related workforce development/training needs
⋅ Water use and water quality, land use change/compatibility with local comprehensive plans,
land stability and siting criteria, on-site storage and management of waste, safety/risk
management, community benefits, environmental justice.
⋅ Long term impacts, risks, benefits
⋅ The public education component is the most important
⋅ Safety and fuel disposal (SNF)
11. What additional methods of community education and involvement would you suggest be
utilized throughout this process?
⋅ Community meetings where information is presented by someone other than the local reps
from the county.
⋅ Aggressive digital media campaign (website and social media, including paid media)
⋅ We encourage utilization of a variety of tools in the effort to share information and solicit
meaningful public input including but not limited to phone and mail surveys, community
focus groups, facilitated community input sessions, public forums, etc. speakers, public
awareness campaigns.
⋅ Public tv or radio spots with information
⋅ Statewide Education Consultants
12. What other comments might you wish to include below:
⋅ Agree that to have reliant affordable energy we must look at all options
